Decision to reinstate retired police officer was not rational
Matter of Michael A. Ciacciullo v. Police Commissioner of the City of New York
The decision for this Article 78 case was rendered in 2006. In 1992, petitioner was placed on ordinary disability retirement as a New York City Housing Authority police officer due to a psychological condition related to job stress. In 1998, petitioner sought reinstatement with the New York City Police Department (NYPD). Petitioner did not work while on retirement. In 1999, the New York City Employee Retirement Systems medical board determined petitioner was no longer disabled and referred him to the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) for reinstatement.
According to the regular NYPD screening process, petitioner was referred to a psychologist for evaluation. The psychologist found petitioner to be unfit for the position of police officer due to continued issues with stress tolerance and the possibility of a relapse of his disabling psychiatric symptoms. Petitioner was notified of his psychological disqualification in December 2000. He then appealed the decision to the New York City Civil Service Commission. Prior to the hearing, petitioner underwent a second psychological examination with the same conclusion of psychologically unfit.
At the hearing, the Civil Service Commission reversed the NYPD’s unfitness determination and ordered petitioner reinstated with the reasoning that the evidence did not indicate petitioner suffered from any psychological disorders. Petitioner then commenced this Article 78 proceeding to compel his reinstatement while DCAS filed a cross-petition to annul the Commission’s decision.
The Supreme Court transferred the petitions to the Appellate Division which unanimously annulled the Civil Service Commission’s determination concluding that the Commission applied the wrong standard of review and erroneously failed to grant deference to the NYPD’s determination. The matter at issue was whether the Commission’s reinstatement determination was rational and while there may not have been evidence that petitioner was psychologically disabled there also was no evidence that, given his background and decade long lack of employment, petitioner was fit for the stress of police work. DCAS provided medical evidence of petitioner’s future unfitness while petitioner failure to offer proof future fitness.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division, with costs.
To read further on this topic go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.
For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.
