Employee eligible for Workers’ Compensation benefits after suffering a psychic injury that was found to be employment related and not in the nature of discipline

Employee eligible for Workers’ Compensation benefits after suffering a psychic injury that was found to be employment related and not in the nature of discipline
2013 NY Slip Op 04861, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Employer appealed a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board that ruled that employee had sustained a compensable injury in the course of her employment.

The basic facts:

1. The employer required employee to frequently travel between her office and New York City and the employer paid her travel and lodging expenses.

2. The Inspector General investigated an anonymous complaint regarding the employee’s travel and determined that she had committed no wrongdoing, but referred the matter to the Comptroller to assess the tax implications of the employer's travel reimbursement practices.

3. The Comptroller determined that to correct the employer'sreimbursement practices that violated Internal Revenue Service rules the employee should be deemed to have earned over $100,000 in additional income as a result of those practices and that the employee was responsible for paying back taxes and penalties on that amount.

4. Upon learning of the Comptroller's findings the employee “incurred a psychic injury” and applied for workers' compensation benefits.

5. The Workers' Compensation Board rejected the argument advanced by the employer and its workers' compensation carrier that her claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law §2 (7).

6. Workers' Compensation Law §2 (7) provides that the term "injury" and "personal injury" for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law "mean only accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment and such disease or infection as may naturally and unavoidably result therefrom. The terms "injury" and "personal injury" shall not include an injury which is solely mental and is based on workrelated stress if such mental injury is a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer."

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, explaining that in contrast to the employee suffering psychic injury stemming from work-related stress that was "a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision [by the appointing authority] involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer," the review of the employer’s travel “reimbursement practices,” was not "aimed at" her and thus substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the employee’s resulting mental injury was not the direct consequence of a disciplinary action or work evaluation.*

In addition, the court said it would not disturb the Board's determination that the stress that the employee experienced was greater than that generally experienced by similarly situated workers in a normal work environment as that factual finding was also supported by substantial evidence. Here, said the Appellate Division, the stress from being advised that “she was responsible for taxes and penalties on over $100,000 of imputed income due to her employer's mistaken reimbursement practices, with no wrongdoing on her own part, along with her knowledge that she was not financially in a position to handle that substantial liability, was not a normal occurrence in the workplace and exceeded the typical stress associated with claimant's position.”**

* Judge Egan dissented from the majority opinion, noting that in his view, and notwithstanding the fact that such investigation ultimately did not culminate in disciplinary charges being lodged against employee, the employee’s workers' compensation claim has its genesis in — and is the "direct consequence [of] a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action … taken in good faith by the employer."

** In a press release dated July 1, 2013, the State Comptroller reported that auditors examined the travel costs of another Albany-based Department employee whose long-term assignment to a New York City work location resulted in travel costs exceeding $100,000. Auditors examined $156,124 in travel costs associated with this employee's assignment, finding there was a lack of documentation to establish whether the official station of the selected employee was in the best interest of the state. The release also stated that the Department “may also have incorrectly failed to report taxable travel expenses to federal and state taxing authorities for 2010 and 2011.”  The matter is still being examined by the Comptroller's office to determine if further corrective action is needed. The Comptrollers report has been posted on the Internet at: http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093013/12s75.pdf 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04861.htm

Taxpayer’s challenge to the Village’s establishment of a service awards program for volunteer firefighters dismissed “for lack of standing”

Taxpayer’s challenge to the Village’s establishment of a service awards program for volunteer firefighters dismissed “for lack of standing”
Davidson v Village of Penn Yan, 2013 NY Slip Op 04151, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Wayne Davidson challenged the Village Board of Trustees of Village of Penn Yan (the Board) establishment of a service awards program for volunteer firefighters pursuant to General Municipal Law Article 11-A.

§216 of GML Article 11-a provides, in pertinent part, for the establishment of “service award programs for volunteer firefighters of political subdivisions of the state and for volunteer firefighters other than of political subdivisions of the state. Such service award program may be adopted only by resolution of the governing board of a political subdivision, “receiving the affirmative vote of at least sixty percent of the governing board of the political subdivision having control of the fire departments and fire companies, and the approval of a mandatory referendum authorizing the adopting of the program by the eligible voters within such political subdivision.”*

Supreme Court granted the Board’s motions and dismissed Davidson’s petitions. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that Davidson failed to demonstrate that he is personally aggrieved by the Board's actions inasmuch as he did not establish that he "sustained special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally."

While the court stated that “the doctrine of common-law taxpayer standing . . . would excuse such lack of personal aggrievement,” the doctrine requires a petitioner to establish that the failure to accord such standing “would be in effect to erect an impenetrable barrier to any judicial scrutiny of [the Board's] action." Anderson, said the Appellate Division, had not made such a showing.

* The full text of §216 is posted on the Internet at: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$GMU216$$@TXGMU0216+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=00241127+&TARGET=VIEW

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04151.htm

Although individual acts of misconduct might not warrant termination of the individual, when considered in total dismissal could be the appropriate penalty to be impose

Although individual acts of misconduct might not warrant termination of the individual, when considered in total dismissal could be the appropriate penalty to be impose

2013 NY Slip Op 04414, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Fire District’s Board of Fire Commissioners served one of members of the Fire Department with disciplinary charges pursuant to General Municipal Law §209-l which in pertinent part, provides for Removal of volunteer officers and volunteer members of fire departments for incompetence or misconduct.

Subdivision 5 of §209-l states that a member of the fire department [1] suspend a volunteer firefighter after charges are filed and pending disposition of the charges and [2] after the hearing may remove such person or may suspend him or her for a period of time not to exceed one year if he or she is found guilty of one or more of the charges served upon him or her.

.

§209-l further provides that “The provisions of this section shall not affect the right of members of any fire company to remove a volunteer officer or voluntary member of such company for failure to comply with the constitution and by-laws of such company.”

The Board of Fire Commissioner filed charges against one of the volunteer firefighters alleging that the volunteer [1] had engaged in misconduct, including violations of the Fire Department's bylaws and code of conduct. A hearing was conducted and the Hearing Officer found the volunteer guilty of the charges and recommended that he [1] be expelled from membership in the Fire Department and [2] removed from his position as an officer of the Fire Company.

The Board of Fire Commissioners adopted the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law and expelled the volunteer from the Fire Department and removed him from the office he had held.

In response to the individual’s challenge to the Board’s action the Appellate Division said that its determination that the individual was guilty of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the Hearing Officer described volunteer's conduct as "persistently, repeatedly, intentionally, willfully, and incorrigibly insubordinate" based on the testimony of witnesses and the volunteer’s personnel records with the Fire Department.

Citing Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, the Appellate Division, noting that the volunteer’s acts of misconduct might not, individually, warrant expulsion from the Fire Department, said that “considering his conduct as a whole, we do not find the penalty of expulsion to be so disproportionate to the disciplinary charges as to be shocking to our sense of fairness.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04414.htm

Removal from public office by operation of law

Removal from public office by operation of law
2013 NY Slip Op 04884, Appellate Division, First Department

A New York City police officer was summarily dismissed from his position upon his entering a plea of “guilty” of “offering a false instrument for filing.”*

The officer’s CPLR Article 78 petition challenging his termination was dismissed by Supreme Court, New York County and he appealed.

Sustaining the lower court’s ruling, the Appellate Division noted that his offering a false instrument for filing constituted a violation of the oath of office, since the offense involves willful deceit.

Accordingly, said the court, his office was vacated automatically upon conviction,** pursuant to Public Officers Law §30(1)(e). §30(1) of the Public Officers Law provides that a public office shall become vacant by operation of law under certain circumstances, including the officer’s conviction of a felony, or a crime involving a violation of his or her oath of office. A police officer is a public officer and thus subject to the provisions of §30(1)(e).

In any event, a pre-termination hearing that might be otherwise required as a condition precedent to removing a public officer having tenure in the position or prior to the expiration of his or her term of office is not required in the event his or her termination is within the ambit of §30(1).

Significantly, §30(1)(e) provides that that a non-elected official may apply for reinstatement to the appointing authority upon reversal or the vacating of such conviction where the conviction is the sole basis for the vacancy. As the police officer had entered a plea of guilty, it appears unlikely that his conviction would be “reversed” or “vacated,” thus triggering any opportunity to seek a hearing seeking reinstatement to his former position.

* See Penal Law §175.30.

** A plea of guilty is deemed a conviction.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04884.htm