New York Civil Service Attorney Law Blog : New York Civil Service Lawyer & Attorney : Kevin P. Sheerin : Article 78 : Serving New York City, Long Island, Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island

Retirement Benefits Denied Due to Substantial Evidence Presented by New York State

In the Matter of Stephen C. Caruana v. Thomas P. DiNapoli, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al..

Petitioner, Stephen C. Caruana, sought to review a decision of Respondent which denied his application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

In March 2006, Petitioner, a police officer, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits. Caruana claimed that he was permanently incapacitated due to neck and back injuries that were a result of three work-related incidents. Initially, his application was denied and petitioner requested a redetermination, therefore, a hearing was held. The Hearing Officer concluded that Petitioner “…failed to establish that such incapacity was caused by either 1987 incident or the 2003 incident, resulting in the denial of his application, an Article 78 followed.

The Appellate Division stated that the Petitioner has the burden of proving that his injuries were the results of the alleged incidents and in deciding whether Petitioner has fulfilled this burden, Respondent is entitled to produce “…conflicting medical evidence and to credit the opinion of one expert…” over the other.

In 2007, Petitioner had an orthopedic surgeon perform a spinal fusion surgery who agreed that Caruana condition was related to the 1987 incident and a chiropractor who agreed that his disability is related to the 1987 and 2003 incidents. Respondents brought in a board certified surgeon, Austin Leve, to examine Petitioner and review his medical records in August 2006. Leve concluded that Caruana’s injuries were not significant enough of an injury to permanently incapacitate him.

The court concluded that Respondent’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore the decision was confirmed, without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Read more about this Article 78 case here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Brian A. Herlihy v. Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller

In this Article 78 case, the court reviewed a decision of the State Comptroller which denied the petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

In 1995, petitioner started working as a police officer for the Town of Bedford, Westchester County. From 2001 to 2005, petitioner sustained three work related injuries. In 2001, while lifting a speed trailer, petitioner felt a pop in his back. In 2002, he injured his upper back and shoulder while aiding burglary arrest. In 2005, petitioner tripped on a step in the police station while trying to answer the phone and work desk duty.

Two years later, in 2007, Petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits. The application was denied due to none of the incidents encompassed an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. The court confirmed stating that the petitioner bears the burden of proving that his injuries were unintentional. This meant that the injuries were sudden and unusual and completely not linked to ordinary risks of employment.

The court confirmed the initial determination, without costs and dismissed the petition.

Read more about this Article 78 case here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Albert D’Agostino v Thomas DiNapoli, as State Comptroller

Petitioner in this Article 78 case is an attorney who worked part time as counsel for several municipalities and school districts in addition to maintaining a private law practice. In 2000, he retired from municipal service and began receiving public retirement funds. In April of 2008, the State Comptroller changed the regulations for New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System regarding the classification of professional municipal service providers as employees or independent contractors. Under the new regulations, petitioner’s enrollments in the Retirement System were invalidated and he was told he needed to return over $600,000 of retirement benefits that he had received.

Petitioner then commenced an Article 78 appeal seeking immediate reinstatement to the Retirement System alleging improper retroactive application of the new regulations and violation of his due process rights. The Supreme Court granted his petition and dismissed the determination to terminate petitioner’s pension benefits and membership in the Retirement System and ordered respondents to pay accrued arrears in petitioner’s pension. Petitioner then appealed the decision because all of his grounds were not granted relief. Since an appellant must be aggrieved in order to file an appeal, the Court ruled that the appeal must be dismissed. Petitioner was granted the ultimate relief that he sought and therefore cannot be aggrieved.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, without costs.

Read more about this Article 78 retirement benefits case here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link