Correction Officer denied Article 78 appeal for disability retirement benefits
Matter of Wayman Neely v Thomas DiNapoli, as State Comptroller
Petitioner brought about this Article 78 appeal to review a determination of the Comptroller denying him his applications for accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits. In 1985, petitioner, a corrections officer, fell from a ladder during a training exercise and injured himself. Petitioner sustained calcaneal fractures of both ankles and had to undergo multiple surgeries and rehabilitation. In 2000, petitioner reinjured his ankles while attempting to settle a disturbance between two inmates. Petitioner continued to work until he retired in 2003.
Petitioner thereafter applied for accidental disability retirement benefits and performance of duty retirement benefits and was denied. The Hearing Officer upheld the denials and respondent adopted the decision. Petitioner then commenced this Article 78 proceeding to review the determination.
The Hearing Officer determined that since an accident must be the result of a completely unforeseeable event during the performance on routine duties, petitioner’s injury would not fall under this definition and therefore the application must be denied. Petitioner bore the burden of proving the 1985 incident constituted an accident and although the misstep may have been caused by sweat on the ladder rungs, this is not sufficient proof for an award of accidental disability retirement benefits.
In regards to petitioner’s application to performance of duty retirement benefits for the injury sustained in 2000, while there is no question that petitioner is permanently disabled, the issue of whether this disability is directly the result of the incident in 2000 is debatable. The Retirement System’s board certified orthopedic surgeon believed that the disability was due to posttraumatic osteoarthritis caused by the bilateral fractures sustained in 1985 and could not have resulted solely from the 2000 injury. Since respondent has the exclusive authority to resolve conflicts in medical opinion and the respondent’s doctor’s opinion was rational and fact-based upon the examination of petitioner, the Court will not disturb respondent’s decision.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court confirmed the determination, without costs, and dismissed the petitioner.
Read more about this Article 78 disability 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.
