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
AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM.
Question of Fact About Whether Solar Panels Violate a Restrictive Covenant Precluded Dismissal of Complaint 
THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THE REDACTED PORTIONS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AND WERE INCULPATORY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
NUISANCE LAW COULD LEAD TO EVICTION FOR REPORTING CRIMES TO THE POLICE, THE REACH OF THE LAW VIOLATED TENANTS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE LANDLORD.
Question of Fact Whether Nonowner Occupied and Controlled Premises Where Plaintiff Fell
AFTER DECLARING A MISTRIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT DISMISS THE INDICTMENT OR AUTHORIZE A NEW INDICTMENT; THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS IN THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WHICH WERE IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT (WHICH WAS STILL VALID) THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE ALLOWED TO STAND; THE CONVICTION ON THE COUNT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT WAS REVERSED; DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT ATTACH AFTER A MISTRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
Abuse Was Not Demonstrated; Non-Testifying Child’s Out-Court-Statements Not Corroborated by Witnesses Who Testified About What the Child Told Them
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED.

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

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