You are here: / Retirement and Social Security Law

TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined tier 3 police officers were not entitled to service credit for periods of unpaid child care leave:

In recognizing that Administrative Code § 13-107(k) did not apply to tier 3 correction officers and that RSSL [Retirement and Social Security Law] § 513 had to be amended to define a service credit for unpaid child care leave, the legislature also evinced its understanding that extending the benefit to tier 3 police officers would require another amendment to RSSL § 513. However, it declined to extend the benefit to tier 3 police officers.

In 2012, the legislature amended Administrative Code § 13-218(h), not to make the unpaid child care leave service credit benefit available to tier 3 police officers but “to make new NYC Tier 3 uniformed correction members ineligible to obtain service credit for child care leave in order to equate their benefits with Tier 3 police/fire benefits” … . This legislation is consistent with the legislative intent in the creation of tier 3, “a comprehensive retirement program designed to provid[e] uniform benefits for all public employees and eliminat[e] the costly special treatment of selected groups . . . inherent in the previous program” … . Lynch v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04826, First Dept 6-28-18

​RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))/[POLICE OFFICERS (RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))/CHILD CARE LEAVE (POLICE OFFICERS, TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))

POLICE OFFICER’S INJURY WHEN HELPING LIFT A HEAVY DECEASED PERSON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the injury to petitioner police officer’s hand was not caused by an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. The injury occurred when officer was helping to lift a heavy deceased person:

With regard to accidental disability retirement benefits, “[p]etitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that his disability arose out of an accident as defined by the Retirement and Social Security Law, and respondent’s determination in that regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence”… . To qualify as an accident, the underlying incident “must be a sudden, fortuitous, out of the ordinary and unexpected event that does not result from an activity undertaken in the performance of regular or routine employment duties”… . “[A]n injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties, considered in view of the particular employment in question, is not an accidental injury”… .

Here, petitioner responded to a call and sustained an injury to his fingers while assisting the medical examiner in carrying a large, deceased male to a transport vehicle. Petitioner acknowledged that this work was within the scope of his job duties, regardless of the heft of the body to be carried. Matter of Iovino v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 04814, Third Dept 6-28-18

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICE OFFICER’S INJURY WHEN HELPING LIFT A HEAVY DECEASED PERSON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICE OFFICER’S INJURY WHEN HELPING LIFT A HEAVY DECEASED PERSON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POLICE OFFICER’S INJURY WHEN HELPING LIFT A HEAVY DECEASED PERSON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT))

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the finding that petitioner police officer, who slipped and fell on water which had leaked from a water cooler, was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits. The hearing officer had found that the incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, but the officer was not entitled to benefits because the water was readily observable. The Court of Appeals has recently ruled that a petitioner need not demonstrate a condition was not readily observable in order to demonstrate the incident was an accident:

Respondent [comptroller] adopted the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Officer, who found that slipping on the water “was a sudden, fortuitous mischance and undoubtably unexpected and out of the ordinary.” The Hearing Officer denied benefits, however, based solely upon petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that the water she had slipped on was not readily observable. In its recent decision in Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli (30 NY3d 674 [2018]), the Court of Appeals stated that “the requirement that a petitioner demonstrate that a condition was not readily observable in order to demonstrate an ‘accident’ is inconsistent with our prior case law” … . Inasmuch as respondent concluded that — but for the lack of proof that the water was readily observable — the incident satisfied the criteria to constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, substantial evidence does not support the determination that the incident was not an accident and it must be annulled … . Matter of Daquino v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 03201, Third Dept 5-3-18

​RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW , PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENTS (POLICE OFFICERS, ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/READILY OBSERVABLE CONDITION (ACCIDENTS, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, over a partial dissent, took pains to explain the current law distinguishing between a nonactionable misstep from an actionable slip and fall in the context of a police officer’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. The officer fell descending stone steps which he had used without incident a couple days before. The officer testified there was a slimy or icy substance on the step which he did not notice until after the fall. The Third Department couldn’t discern the precise grounds for the state comptroller’s denial of the benefits and sent the matter back for findings and conclusions based upon the law as explained in the opinion (which is too detailed to be fully described here):

… [T]he controlling standard for determining whether an injury was caused by an accident for purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law remains whether the precipitating event was sudden, unexpected and not a risk of the work ordinarily performed … . In considering whether a particular petitioner has met that standard, courts should not rely on whether a condition was readily observable. Denial of benefits continues to be appropriate where the injury was caused by the employee’s misstep. Whether the employee’s inattention caused an accidental injury depends on the circumstances — i.e., was it essentially a misstep, without more, or was it based on the failure to notice something that was readily observable — and presents a factual issue. Similarly, when determining whether a precipitating event was unexpected, respondent and courts may continue to consider whether the injured person had direct knowledge of the hazard prior to the incident or whether the hazard could have been reasonably anticipated, so long as such a factual finding is based upon substantial evidence in the record. Stancarone v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 02844, Third Dept 4-26-18

​RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICE OFFICERS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POLICE OFFICERS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))/RETIREMENT BENEFITS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS POLICE OFFICERS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICE OFFICERS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))

POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge concurrence/dissent, determined that the injuries suffered by a policemen (Kelly) , who was injured preventing a rafter from falling on another officer attempting to rescue residents of a house crushed by a tree during Hurricane Sandy, and a firefighter (Sica), who was injured by odorless toxic gases while performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on two unconscious persons, did not suffer accidental injury within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Therefore, neither petitioner was entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits:

… [T]here is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that Kelly’s actions in assisting the injured residents of the house during life-threatening conditions fell within his job duties, and that his injuries did not result from a sudden, unexpected event that was not a risk inherent in his duties as a police officer … . …

… [E]xposure to toxic chemicals was a risk for which Sica had been trained, that he had responded to a gas leak in the past, and that his job duties specifically required “working with exposure to . . . fumes, explosives, toxic materials, chemicals and corrosives,” the particular risk that caused Sica’s injury. Inasmuch as it is not unexpected that a firefighter whose job duties required him to respond to emergency medical calls would be exposed to toxic fumes in responding to a call for difficulty breathing, … Sica’s injuries were the result of a risk inherent in his ordinary duties as a firefighter … . Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 01016, CtApp 2-13-18

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP))/POLICE OFFICERS  (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP))/FIREFIGHTERS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP))

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11.

The First Department, in an extensive decision, determined petitioner, a police officer who worked over 100 hours at the World Trade Center (WTC) beginning on September 11, 2001, was not entitled to accident disability retirement benefits (ADR) based upon pulmonary hypertension. There was no showing the pulmonary hypertension was related to the time spent at the WTC:

The record establishes that, long before the events of September 11, 2001, petitioner suffered from a number of medical conditions that are risk factors for the development of pulmonary hypertension. * * *

The record is devoid of any medical study linking exposure to WTC site contaminants to pulmonary hypertension, nor does it contain any evidence that other WTC site responders have been diagnosed with this condition in numbers greater than would be predicted from general epidemiological experience. Matter of Stavropoulos v Bratton, 2017 NY Slip Op 01779, 1st Dept 3-9-17

 

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11)/WORLD TRADE CENTER (9-11) (POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11)/POLICE OFFICERS (9-11, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11)/HYPERTENSION (9-11, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11)

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the incident which led to petitioner’s psychological injury was not an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Petitioner was therefore not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner was on duty in the courthouse when a man fired a shotgun into the building. Petitioner returned fire, killing the shooter:

It is well settled that for purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law, an accident is “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” … , nor can it stem from hazards that may be reasonably anticipated … . Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the event producing the injury was an accident … , and the Comptroller’s determination will be upheld where it is supported by substantial evidence … .

There is no question that petitioner’s heroic efforts saved many lives on the morning in question, and he is to be commended for his service in the protection of others. There is also no question, however, that — based upon a review of petitioner’s job description and testimony — petitioner was injured during the course of executing the very duties that he had been assigned to perform and in the context of responding to a risk that was both reasonably foreseeable and, more to the point, inherent in the execution of his regular duties. Matter of Kowal v DiNapoli, 2016 NY Slip Op 08144, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT)/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT)/POLICE OFFICERS (COURT OFFICER, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT)

POLICE OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL DURING A BURGLARY INVESTIGATION NOT AN ACCIDENT.

The Third Department determined the police officer’s slip and fall on a wet stair was not an accident entitling him to accidental disability retirement benefits:

Petitioner’s search of the residence following the burglary was a part of his routine duties as a police officer. He acknowledged that it was lightly raining when he conducted the search and, although he did not see water pooling on the stairs, he believed that they were wet. He stated that he did not realize that the stairs were slippery until his foot slipped on the top stair. Notwithstanding this, petitioner could have reasonably anticipated the slippery condition of the stairs under the circumstances presented … . Matter of Magistro v DiNapoli, 2016 NY Slip Op 05893, 3rd Dept 8-25-16

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (POLICE OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL DURING A BURGLARY INVESTIGATION NOT AN ACCIDENT)/POLICE OFFICERS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICE OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL DURING A BURGLARY INVESTIGATION NOT AN ACCIDENT)/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POLICE OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL DURING A BURGLARY INVESTIGATION NOT AN ACCIDENT)

HEARING OFFICER APPLIED THE WRONG REVIEW STANDARD, NEW HEARING ORDERED.

The Third Department annulled the determination and sent the matter back for a new hearing because the hearing officer applied the wrong legal standard. The matter concerned a police officer seeking accidental disability retirement benefits:

… [T]he Hearing Officer applied the incorrect legal standard in rendering her decision. Specifically, the Hearing Officer confined her analysis to whether the initial determination was supported by substantial evidence, rather than undertaking a “‘redetermination'” and exercising “‘the same powers upon such hearing as upon the original application'” … . As this Court recently noted in Matter of DeMaio v DiNapoli (137 AD3d 1545, 1545-1546 [2016]), such deficiency constitutes an error of law requiring annulment of the determination. Matter of Bodenmiller v DiNapoli, 2016 NY Slip Op 05894, 3rd Dept 8-25-16

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, HEARING OFFICER APPLIED THE WRONG REVIEW STANDARD, NEW HEARING ORDERED)/POLICE OFFICERS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, HEARING OFFICER APPLIED THE WRONG REVIEW STANDARD, NEW HEARING ORDERED)/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POLICE OFFICERS,  HEARING OFFICER APPLIED THE WRONG REVIEW STANDARD, NEW HEARING ORDERED)

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)

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