You are here: / / State Did Not Rebut Statutory Presumption Corrections Officer’s Heart...

State Did Not Rebut Statutory Presumption Corrections Officer’s Heart Condition Was Linked to His Work

The Third Department determined petitioner, a corrections officer, should have been awarded performance of duty disability retirement benefits.  The state did not rebut the statutory presumption that petitioner's heart condition was linked to his job:

… Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-d … provides that performance of duty disability retirement benefits shall be awarded to correction officers who become disabled by “any condition of impairment of health caused by diseases of the heart” where such disability occurs while they are employed. Notably, the statute contains a presumption that the impairment “was incurred in the performance and discharge of duty, unless the contrary can be proven by competent evidence” (Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-d). To successfully rebut this statutory presumption, it must be demonstrated through expert proof that the applicant's cardiac condition was caused by cardiac risk factors other than the applicant's employment … . Matter of Park v DiNapoli, 2014 NY Slip Op 098075, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


You might also like
Attorney Was an “Employee,” Not an Independent Contractor, for Puposes of the State and Local Employees’ Retirement System
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF AN APPEAL FROM A JURY VERDICT (AS OPPOSED TO A GUILTY PLEA) WAS VALID (THIRD DEPT). ​
CLAIMANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RETURN TO WORK TO WARRANT BENEFITS; TOTAL INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY CLAIM SENT BACK, JUDGE AND BOARD FAILED TO DISCUSS THE RELEVANT FACTORS IN THE DENIAL OF THAT CLAIM.
SUSPENDED JUDGMENT COMMITTING RESPONDENT TO JAIL FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES.
CLAIMANT ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE RULING OBJECTED TO IN HER APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW; HER APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).
MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Complaint by Members of a Congregation against the Congregation’s Board... Self-Insured Employer Not Entitled to Offset Workers’ Compensation Benefits...