Labor & Employment Law

Ability to perform light duty permits discontinuation of GML Section 207-c benefits

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Ability to perform light duty permits discontinuation of GML Section 207-c benefits
Matter of Raymond Nicchia v County of Nassau, 43 A.D.3d 823 Appellate Division, Second Department

Nassau County Corrections Officer Raymond Nicchia received disability benefits from Nassau County pursuant to Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law as a result of his suffering a work-related injury. The County terminated Nicchia?s benefits on June 2, 2005, based what the Appellate Division described as ?objective medical evidence [that] established that [Nicchia] is physically capable of performing light duty work.?

The court rejected Nicchia?s claim that he was entitled to Section 207-c benefits based upon alleged psychological injuries ?because such request was not made until approximately four years after the alleged injuries occurred.?

The Appellate Division ruled that Nassau County?s decision to terminate Nicchia?s Section 207-c benefits ?had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious,? citing the decisions in Cole-Hatchard v Sherwood, 309 AD2d 933, and Miele v Town of Clarkstown, 299 AD2d 362, in support of its ruling.

On a related issue, the Appellate Division said that Nicchia ?was not entitled to a due process hearing? insofar as the termination of his Section 207-c benefit in this instance was concerned. The court pointed out that the controlling collective bargaining agreement specifies that a corrections officer may elect to resolve a dispute concerning the payment of General Municipal Law Section 207-c benefits by agreeing to a medical evaluation by an independent physician in lieu of a hearing. The decision notes that the independent physician?s determination is binding upon all parties.

As Nicchia chose to resolve his dispute with the County by submitting himself to a medical examination by an independent physician in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, the Appellate Division ruled that he was not entitled to a hearing concerning the discontinuation of his benefits.

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