| Matter of Doran v New York State & Local Police & Fire RetirementSys. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08580 [56 AD3d 922] |
| November 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Ronald A. Doran, Petitioner, v New York State andLocal Police and Fire Retirement System, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of theSupreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Comptroller whichdenied petitioner's applications for disability retirement benefits and accidental disabilityretirement benefits.
Petitioner, a State Trooper, was injured in 2001 when his State Police vehicle was struckfrom behind while parked. Based upon injuries to his neck, back and right knee, petitionerapplied for ordinary disability retirement benefits and accidental disability retirement benefits.Following initial disapproval of his applications by the Comptroller and a request by petitionerfor a hearing and redetermination, a Hearing Officer found that petitioner had failed to establishthat he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties and denied theapplications. The Comptroller accepted the Hearing Officer's recommendations, promptingpetitioner to initiate this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
To be eligible for disability retirement benefits, petitioner must establish that he is [*2]permanently disabled from his regular job duties (see Matter of Wilson v New York State &Local Police & Fire Retirement Sys., 53 AD3d 762, 763 [2008]; Matter of Mainzer v DiNapoli, 52AD3d 1167, 1167 [2008]). To that end, petitioner presented medical records and reportsfrom his treating physicians, who concluded that he was unable to perform all the duties of astate trooper due to disc herniation in his back and neck. In contrast, respondent presented thetestimony of an independent medical examiner, who concluded that, based on his examination ofpetitioner and review of his medical records, petitioner was not permanently disabled and manyof his symptoms were fictitious rather than anatomical.
Clearly, the Comptroller is accorded the exclusive authority to weigh conflicting medicalevidence and credit one medical expert's opinion over another (see Matter of Sweeney v Hevesi, 50AD3d 1366, 1367 [2008]; Matter ofQuigley v Hevesi, 48 AD3d 1023, 1025 [2008]). As the independent medical examinerprovided an "articulated, rational and fact-based opinion, founded upon a physical examinationand review of relevant medical reports and records" (Matter of Swack v Hevesi, 30 AD3d 853, 854 [2006]; accordMatter of Mainzer v DiNapoli, 52 AD3d at 1168), the Comptroller's determination issupported by substantial evidence and we will not disturb it, despite evidence in the record whichmight support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Swack v Hevesi, 30 AD3d at854-855; Matter of Rolandelli vHevesi, 27 AD3d 945, 946 [2006]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.