Labor & Employment Law

Medical disqualification for public employment

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Medical disqualification for public employment
Almetta Rivers v NYC Department of Sanitation, Index # 1042 10/07 Supreme Court, NY County, Judge Lewis B. Stone [not officially reported]

The New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS), disqualified Almetta Rivers ?from consideration for the position of Sanitation Worker.? After the New York City Civil Service Commission (CSC) rejected her appeal of her disqualification by DOS, Rivers sued, seeking a court order compelling her appointment on the grounds that CSC?s determination rejecting her appeal was arbitrary, capricious and irrational.

Rivers had applied for, and passed, the written portion of the civil service examination for the position of Sanitation Worker. An additional requirement for appointment to the position: the ability of applicants to meet the physical qualifications set by DOS for appointment to the position Among these requirements: applicants for Sanitation Worker positions were disqualified if the candidate had ?diastolic [blood] pressure is equal or greater than 145 mm Hg.?

At her August 17, 2006 physical examination, Rivers? blood pressure tested ?174/84.? Further, in her pre-employment medical questionnaire dated August 17, 2006, Rivers indicated: ?High Blood Pressure medications - taken for (1 year 2005-2006) ... daily.?

An electrocardiogram administered on the same day revealed a ?left ventricular hypertrophy, ST abnormality indicating her Hypotensive status has now begun to affect her cardiac function.?

In view of these medical findings, DOS disqualified Rivers for appointment as a Sanitation Worker.

Rivers? did not challenge DOS standards as to what medical conditions would disqualify an applicant. Rather she contended that CSC?s decision rejecting her appeal from her disqualification by DOS was arbitrary and capricious as to the applicability of such rules to her. Rivers claimed that the three letters by three doctors she had submitted to CSC supporting her ability to perform the job and thus CSC?s rejection of her appeal was arbitrary and capricious.

Judge Stone said that ?Rivers? own exhibits, even if construed in the most favorable light to her only show that there may have been a conflict in medical opinion.? In any event, said Judge Stone, ?a Court may not substitute its own view of the medical evidence for the administrative decision of CSC in determining not to allow Rivers? appeal.?

Finding that CSC considered the professional opinion of DOS?s medical director supporting the DOS?s disqualification of Rivers, the court dismissed Rivers? petition. Judge Stone said that ?the existence of contrary medical opinions? such as that offered by Rivers did not make CSC?s decision arbitrary and capricious.?

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on April 22, 2008 (boomark / email).