Creditable medical evidence trumps presumption that a disease of the heart was incurred in the performance of police officer duties

To contact us Click HERE

Creditable medical evidence trumps presumption that adisease of the heart was incurred in the performance of police officer dutiesGoodacre v Kelly, 2012 NY Slip Op 05096, Appellate Division,First Department
Supreme Court, granted the Article 78 petition filed by a New York City policeofficer, Charles Goodacre, seeking, among other things, to annul thedetermination by the Trustees of the Retirement System denying his applicationfor accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits to which he claimed he wasentitled pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-k (the Heart Bill)*. Although Supreme Court found that the officer was“entitled to such benefits as a matter of law,” the Appellate Division reversedthe lower courts ruling.
§207-k sets out the rebuttable presumption thata police officer or firefighter suffering an  impairment of health “causedby diseases of the heart, resulting in total or partial disability or death …who successfully passed a physical examination on entry into the service …which examination failed to reveal any evidence of such condition, shall bepresumptive evidence that it was incurred in the performance and discharge ofduty….” The presumption may be rebutted by competent evidence to the contrary.
Citing Borenstein v New York City Employees' RetirementSystem, 88 NY2d 756, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court “exceededthe scope of its review,” which is to determine “whether ‘some credibleevidence’ supported the Medical Board's determination as to disability.”
In this instance Supreme Court concluded, “contrary tofindings of the Medical Board,” that although there were conflictingsubmissions, as a matter of law, Goodacre’s hypertension “… constituted astress-related condition warranting ADR benefits.”
Such a determination, however, “was the sole province of theMedical Board and the Board of Trustees, not the court.” The Board and theTrustees were to resolve conflicts in the medical evidence. Having reviewed allof the medical reports and, in its most recent decision, recognizing theconflicting evidence, the Medical Board determined that although Goodacre hadhypertensive heart disease, he did not have a stress related disability becausethere was insufficient evidence…. "
Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that the statutorypresumption of §207-k was overcome by this credible evidence of Goodacre'sdisabling congenital heart condition.
Contrary to Goodacre's contention, and the Supreme Court'sconclusion, the Appellate Division ruled that “it cannot be said as a matter oflaw that the cause of [Goodacre's] disability is job related stress” and theMedical Board's decision was supported by credible evidence. Further, said thecourt, the Board sufficiently set forth the reasons for its conclusions.
The Appellate Division then reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and deniedGoodacre’s Article 78 petition.
* N.B.There are two “General Municipal Law Section 207-Kaddressing “Disabilities of policemen and firemen in certain cities.” The firstsets out an expiration date of July 1,1973; the second, 207-K*2, setout an expiration date of July 1,1995. However, Retirement and Social Security Law §480.a extendscertain temporary benefits and supplementation programs otherwise “scheduled toexpire or terminate at any time” during the period January 1, 1974 through andincluding December 31, 2011, including the so-called Heart Bill.
The decision isposted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_05096.htm


=======================
General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c- a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder is available from the PublicEmployment Law Press. Click on http://section207.blogspot.com/for additional information about this electronic reference manual.

========================