You are here: / / FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED...

FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS.

The Third Department, reversing the denial of accidental disability retirement benefits to a firefighter, over a two-justice dissent, determined injury caused by odorless toxic fumes (unrelated to a fire) was an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Petitioner-firefighter responded to an emergency at a supermarket where two people were unconscious. It was only after the fact that the presence of carbon monoxide and cyanogen chloride was discovered:

It is well settled that for purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law, an accident is defined as “‘a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact'” … . “Significantly, it must result from an activity that is not undertaken in the performance of ordinary job duties and that is not an inherent risk of such job duties” … . Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the event producing the injury was an accident, and respondent’s determination will be upheld where it is supported by substantial evidence … . * * *

We have “held that exposure to toxic fumes while fighting fires is an inherent risk of a firefighter’s regular duties” … . Here, however, unlike our prior cases involving exposure to toxic gases or smoke, petitioner was not responding to a fire that presented the inherent and foreseeable risk of inhaling toxic gases … . The record evidence further reflects that petitioner was neither aware that the air within the supermarket contained toxic chemical gases … , nor did he have any information that could reasonably have led him to anticipate, expect or foresee the precise hazard when responding to the medical emergency at the supermarket … . Matter of Sica v DiNapoli. 2016 NY Slip Op 05420, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

 

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS)/ACCIDENT DISABILITY BENEFITS (FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS)/FIREFIGHTERS (FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS)/TOXIC FUMES (FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS)

You might also like
“Possession of Unauthorized Medication” Charge Could Not Stand—Chain of Custody of the Pills Not Demonstrated
Town Planning Board’s Approval of the Installation of Wind Turbines Should Not Have Been Reversed—Board Properly Considered All the Factors Mandated by the Land Use Ordinance and Supreme Court Did Not Have the Authority to Substitute Its Judgment for the Board’s
Grant of Visitation to Grandmother Reversed
STANDARD PRACTICE OF USING THE SALE PROCEEDS TO PAY OFF THE EXISTING MORTGAGES ON THE SELLER’S PROPERTY AFTER THE CLOSING UPHELD BY THE MAJORITY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE STANDARD PRACTICE VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE STANDARD PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRES THE PROPERTY TO BE UNENCUMBERED AT THE CLOSING (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
Guidelines With Pre-Authorized Specific Procedure List for Medical Tests and Services Held Valid; Variance Procedure for Tests and Services Not on List Held Valid
LOCAL LAW CREATING A SENIOR LIVING DISTRICT (SLD) WAS INVALID BECAUSE APPROVAL BY A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE TOWN BOARD WAS REQUIRED; BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT PROPER, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RULED ON THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT ENROLLED IN A BARBER TRAINING PROGRAM AFTER HIS REGULAR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS HAD RUN OUT, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING... SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR STUDENT’S FALL ON SNOW-COVERED, ICY PLAYGROUND,...