Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Retirement System rebuts presumption that member?s disability is work related

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Retirement System rebuts presumption that member?s disability is work related
Matter of James W. Bryant v Hevesi, 41 A.D.3d 930 Appellate Division, Third Department

Retirement and Social Security Law Section 507-b creates a rebuttable presumption that a law enforcement officer disabled as the result of a heart attack was so disabled as the result of his or her performance of law enforcement duties.

Section 507-e provides:. Uniformed court officers and peace officers; certain disabilities. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or of any general, special or local law to the contrary, any member who is a uniformed court officer or peace officer in the unified court system who contracts any condition of impairment of health caused by diseases of the heart, resulting in disability or death to such court officer or peace officer, presently employed, and who shall have sustained such disability while so employed, shall be presumptive evidence that such disability was incurred in the performance and discharge of duty and the natural and proximate result of an accident, unless the contrary be proved by competent evidence; provided, however, that prior to entry into service, such member successfully passed a physical examination which failed to disclose evidence of any disease or other impairment of the heart. [n.b.: This section expires June 30, 2009.]

James W. Bryant, a correction officer, suffered a mild heart attack as he was entering the prison where he was employed. He was subsequently diagnosed as suffering from atherosclerotic heart disease.

The New York State and Local Employees? Retirement System denied Bryant?s application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits on the ground that Byrant?s disability was not a natural and proximate result of his duties as a correction officer. Ultimately the Comptroller adopted a Hearing Officer?s finding that the System had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption in Bryant?s favor

According to the decision, Bryant relied ?exclusively on the statutory presumption outlined under Retirement and Social Security Law Section 507-b (c) to establish that his disability was incurred in the performance of his job duties.?

Thus, said the Appellate Division, the sole issue to determine is whether the Retirement System rebutted this presumption with competent medical evidence.? The court concluded that:

Upon our review of the record, we find that [the presumption] was so rebutted. In particular, the expert testimony of the Retirement System?s examining physician, coupled with [Byrant?s] medical records themselves, constituted such competent medical evidence rebutting the presumption.

The decision states that Bryant was morbidly obese, under the care of a physician and taking medication to address three distinct maladies, namely, high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol and these conditions were each independently identified by his own treating physician as a ?major risk factor? for heart disease.

Further, following his heart attack, Bryant underwent a series of four different cardiac catherizations, but the atherosclerotic blockages in his coronary arteries kept reoccurring notwithstanding the fact that he was out of work during that entire time period The Hearing Officer relied heavily on this latter factor in finding that Bryant was not entitled to performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

Finally, said the court, the Retirement System?s medial expert concluded in a written report ?that there is no evidence to implicate [Bryant?s] occupation as causally related to his current disabilities.?

Based on the record, the Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller?s determination, hold that the presumption set out in Section 507-e was effectively rebutted by evidence of risk factors that are coupled with expert testimony that excludes an performance of duty disability retirement applicant?s employment as a causative factor.

For the full text of the opinion, go to:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/06/retirement-system-rebuts-presumption.html

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 25, 2008 (boomark / email).