| Matter of Whipple v New York State & Local RetirementSys. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02550 [126 AD3d 1282] |
| March 26, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of William A. Whipple, Petitioner, v NewYork State and Local Retirement System et al., Respondents. |
Iaconis Law Office, PLLC, Chittenango (Paul F. Ioconis of counsel), forpetitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondents.
McCarthy, J.P. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court byorder of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination ofrespondent Comptroller which denied petitioner's application for accidental disabilityretirement benefits.
Petitioner, a highway maintenance worker for the Department of Transportation, wasinvolved in a work-related accident on April 11, 2005 when sand was dropped on hishead. In 2007, petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits, assertingthat he was permanently incapacitated as a result of the injuries sustained in theworkplace accident. Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer ruled that petitioner failedto establish that the disability resulted from the accident. Respondent Comptroller(hereinafter respondent) accepted the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Officerand denied petitioner's application. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. There is no dispute that the April 11, 2005 incident was an accident andthat petitioner is permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties.Nevertheless, "[t]o be eligible for accidental disability retirement benefits, petitioner'sincapacitation must be 'the natural and proximate result of an accident' sustained while inservice" (Matter of Shea vDiNapoli, 115 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2014], quoting Retirement and SocialSecurity Law § 363 [a][*2][1]). Wheresubstantial evidence supports respondent's decision, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Messina v New YorkState & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 102 AD3d 1068, 1068 [2013],lv denied 21 NY3d 855 [2013]).
Here, Patrick Connolly, an orthopedic surgeon who examined petitioner andreviewed his medical records, opined that the accident was an aggravation of along-standing preexisting degenerative condition that resolved, as evidenced by hisability to return to work. Connolly referred to the X-ray and MRI reports that noted noacute injury from the accident but, rather, degenerative findings that occur over time.Furthermore, petitioner's medical records indicated, and petitioner's testimony confirmed,that he had a history of neck pain and hand numbness beginning in the 1980s. Underthese circumstances, Connolly presented a rational and fact-based medical opinion basedupon medical records, examination of petitioner and petitioner's work history. Althoughthere is medical evidence to support a contrary conclusion, respondent's determination todeny accidental disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, itwill not be disturbed (see Matterof Ortiz v DiNapoli, 98 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2012]; Matter of Murray v DiNapoli,79 AD3d 1412, 1413-1414 [2010]).
We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions, including the consideration ofcertain witness statements relating to the accident, and find them to be withoutmerit.
Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.