Matter of Bryant v. Hevesi
Decision Date | 07 June 2007 |
Docket Number | 501609. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 04747,838 N.Y.S.2d 228,41 A.D.3d 930 |
Parties | In the Matter of JAMES W. BRYANT, Petitioner, v. ALAN G. HEVESI, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Petitioner experienced a mild heart attack as he was entering the prison where he was employed as a correction officer and was eventually diagnosed with atherosclerotic heart disease. As a result of this disabling condition, he applied for performance of duty disability retirement benefits (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-b). Respondent Comptroller denied the application on the ground that petitioner's disability was not a natural and proximate result of his duties as a correction officer. Following a hearing, a Hearing Officer sustained the Comptroller's determination, finding that respondent New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption in petitioner's favor (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-b [c]). The Comptroller's adoption of the Hearing Officer's findings prompted this CPLR article 78 proceeding which has since been transferred to this Court (see CPLR 7804 [g]).
Significantly, petitioner relies exclusively on the statutory presumption outlined under Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-b (c) to establish that his disability was incurred in the performance of his job duties.1 The issue thus distills to whether the Retirement System rebutted this presumption with competent medical evidence (see e.g. Matter of Flynn v Regan, 178 AD2d 887, 889 [1991]). Upon our review of the record, we find that it was so rebutted. In particular, the expert testimony of the Retirement System's examining physician, coupled with petitioner's medical records themselves, constituted such competent medical evidence rebutting the presumption (see e.g. Matter of Larberg v Hevesi, 17 AD3d 979, 980-981 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]; Matter of Flynn v Regan, supra).
First, petitioner's medical records reveal that prior to suffering the heart attack at issue, he 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. These conditions were each independently identified by his own treating physician as a "major risk factor" for heart disease. Petitioner's treating physician also testified that petitioner's excessive weight, which was as high as 290 pounds, was an additional minor risk factor for heart disease.2 Furthermore, following his heart attack, petitioner underwent a series of four different cardiac catheterizations, but the atherosclerotic blockages in his coronary arteries kept reoccurring notwithstanding the fact that he was out of work during that entire time period.3 Indeed, the Hearing Officer relied heavily on this latter factor in finding that petitioner was not entitled to performance of duty disability retirement benefits.
Moreover, the Retirement System's expert concluded in a written report "that there is no evidence to implicate [petitioner's] occupation as causally related to his current disabilities." This expert similarly testified at the hearing. In particular, he unequivocally opined that petitioner's heart disease was not caused by his job or job-related stress, but rather by his history of multiple, major risk factors (cf. Matter of Parcell v Office of N.Y. State Comptroller, 29 AD3d 1075 [2006]; Matter of Skae v Regan, 208 AD2d 1028, 1029 [1994]; Matter of Di Laura v Regan, 189 AD2d 994, 995-996 [1993]).4
We have previously confirmed determinations by the Comptroller denying performance of duty disability retirement benefits based upon expert testimony that the applicant's occupation did not have a "positive correlation" to coronary artery disease (Matter of McComb v Regan, 180 AD2d 862, 863 [1992]) or that "the stress of petitioner's duties was not the cause of his disability" (Matter of Ellison v Regan, 189 AD2d 1076, 1077 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 709 [1993]) or that the applicant's "coronary atherosclerosis is not caused by his work, but is associated with his abnormal metabolic disorder [high cholesterol]" (Matter of Krupinski v McCall, 302 AD2d 676, 677 [2003]). In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Park v. DiNapoli
...923 N.Y.S.2d 795 [2011] ; Matter of Walters v. DiNapoli, 82 A.D.3d 1487, 1488, 919 N.Y.S.2d 555 [2011] ; Matter of Bryant v. Hevesi, 41 A.D.3d 930, 932, 838 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2007] ). To rebut the presumption, the Retirement System relied upon the testimony of Stanley Halprin, a cardiologist wh......
-
In the Matter of James G. Harrison v. Dinapoli
...evidence ( see generally Matter of Lawless v. DiNapoli, 56 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 867 N.Y.S.2d 774 [2008]; Matter of Bryant v. Hevesi, 41 A.D.3d 930, 931, 838 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2007] ). Upon our review of the record as a whole, we find that the statutory presumption was rebutted and, accordingly, c......
-
Walsh v. DiNapoli
...a causative factor’ ” (Matter of Rivera v. DiNapoli, 78 A.D.3d 1295, 1296, 911 N.Y.S.2d 206 [2010], quoting Matter of Bryant v. Hevesi, 41 A.D.3d 930, 932, 838 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2007] ). Here, respondent relied upon the opinion of cardiologist Richard Joseph, who performed a disability retireme......
-
In the Matter of Dennis R. Walters v. Dinapoli
...911 N.Y.S.2d 206 [2010]; Matter of Lawless v. DiNapoli, 56 A.D.3d 1114, 1115–1116, 867 N.Y.S.2d 774 [2008]; Matter of Bryant v. Hevesi, 41 A.D.3d 930, 931–932, 838 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2007]; Matter of Krupinski v. McCall, 302 A.D.2d 676, 677, 754 N.Y.S.2d 723 [2003]; cf. Matter of Parcell v. Offi......