| Matter of Saddlemire v DiNapoli |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04359 [84 AD3d 1692] |
| May 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Alan F. Saddlemire, Petitioner, v ThomasP. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondents.
Stein, 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 respondent Comptrollerwhich denied petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner was employed as a correction officer and applied for performance of dutydisability retirement benefits after experiencing episodes of atrial fibrillation while working.Respondent New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System disapproved hisapplication, prompting him to seek a hearing and redetermination. A Hearing Officer sustainedthat denial after a hearing, and his findings and conclusions were accepted by respondentComptroller. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
There is no dispute that petitioner successfully passed his preemployment physical and thathis heart condition renders him permanently incapacitated from performing his duties as acorrection [*2]officer. Accordingly, the only issue before us iswhether the Retirement System rebutted the presumption of compensability contained inRetirement and Social Security Law § 507-b (c) by competent evidence (see Matter of Rivera v DiNapoli, 78AD3d 1295, 1295-1296 [2010]).
Our review of the record satisfies us that the Retirement System did so and, as such, weconfirm. The Retirement System produced the report of cardiologist Stephen Nash, whoexamined petitioner and reviewed his medical records. With regard to the cause of petitioner'sheart condition, Nash identified a number of cardiac risk factors unrelated to petitioner's work,including hypertension, a family history of fibrillation, and cardiac abnormalities such as a patentforamen ovale with abnormal atrial flow and left ventricular hypertrophy. Indeed, anothercardiologist, Igal Zuravicky, had previously opined that petitioner had "underlying conductionabnormalities" and unequivocally stated that his condition was unrelated to his duties as acorrection officer. Inasmuch as this expert evidence not only identified factors underlyingpetitioner's heart condition that were unrelated to his work, but further excluded his job as one ofthem, the statutory presumption was satisfactorily rebutted. Having rejected the credibility of thecontrary opinions of other doctors submitted by petitioner, as the Comptroller was entitled to do(see Matter of Lipsky v New York StateComptroller, 56 AD3d 1101, 1103 [2008]), the Comptroller had a sufficient basis toconclude that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof in the absence of such presumption,and petitioner's application was properly denied (see Matter of Walters v DiNapoli, 82 AD3d 1487, 1488 [2011];Matter of Rivera v DiNapoli, 78 AD3d at 1296; Matter of Bryant v Hevesi, 41 AD3d 930, 932 [2007]).
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.