Court Annuls Findings of the Board of Trustees Decision Concerning Retired NYPD Member's claim for ADR
Matter of Griffiths v Kelly
Article 78, petitioner Gale Griffiths sought to appeal the decision denying her an accident disability retirement.
Griffiths was a member of the NYPD from July 5, 1989 until her retirement on August 25, 2010. She sustained an injury on February 24, 2009 when the petitioner tripped over an extension cord to the heater in an office at the Queens Family Court in Jamaica. The Command Supervisor provided an injury report stating that the petitioner tripped over the extension cord and fell into the file cabinets injuring her neck, right arm and right shoulder. The Investigating Supervisor found that the petitioner was in “proper performance of official police duty.”
On March 8, 2010 the petitioner filed an ADR allowance application in accordance with Administrative Code 13-252 in reference to the injury sustained on February 24, 2009. She alleged this event caused consistent pain and consequently decreased her range of motion and mobility.
Police Officer Gumiela responded to the incident on February 24, 2009 but, did not write her report until May 20, 2010 stating that “Det. Griffiths stated to me that she tripped on the extension cord that was attached to the heater. This heater is normally under the desk. I can only surmise that it was moved by the night time cleaning crew and they failed to put it back under the desk.”
On May 12, 2010 the PDF Medical Board approved the petitioners ADR application.
On July 14, 2010, the Board of Trustees held a meeting where Elizabeth Botwin, trustee for the New York City Department of Finance, conveyed her opinion that the petitioner should have seen the extension cord. And that the statement that the heater had been moved by the cleaning crew was made over a year later and not aligning with the accounts from the day of the injury. On September 8, 2010 the Board of Trustees denied the petitioners ADR application in a 6 to 6 tie, stating that the “incident was not an “accident” for pension purposes.”
The petitioner commenced in an article 78 stating that the Board of Trustees’ decision was arbitrary and capricious. That the petitioner had proved that she had been injured in an “accident.”
It was argued that the Board of Trustees’ decision was based upon evidence. That the injury occurred not because of a sudden event but because of an “incident that was an inherent hazard of performance of police duties and her own misstep.”
Discussion
The petitioner must prove “that he or she suffered physical or mental incapacitation as a natural and proximate result of an accidental injury received in city-service and that such disability was not the result of petitioner’s own willful negligence” in order to acquire accident disability retirement benefits.
The City respondents dispute that (1) the evidence did not consider the injury an “accident” by law and (2) the affidavits supplied by Griffiths and Gumiela were not in alliance with the evidence from the date of the injury and were dismissed by the Board of Trustees.
The court found that there was an “accident” in accordance within the New York City Administrative Code 13-252. There is no evidence that the injury occurred because of the petitioner’s willful negligence. “Griffiths’ fall was sudden, unexpected, and out of the ordinary in that one would not normally expect an extension cord to be laying on a floor where people are walking in an office room.”
The petition is granted in annulling the findings of the Board of Trustees against the petitioner and the matter was remanded to the Board of Trustees.
