Labor & Employment Law

Employer seeks reimbursement for §207-c benefits paid to injured police officer

Employer seeks reimbursement for §207-c benefits paid to injured police officer
City of Syracuse v Marissa L. Williams and Mary G. Williams, 45 A.D.3d 1491

Section 207-c(6) of the General Municipal Law provides as follows:

6. Notwithstanding any provision of law contrary thereto contained herein or elsewhere, a cause of action shall accrue to the municipality for reimbursement in such sum or sums actually paid as salary or wages and or for medical treatment and hospital care as against any third party against whom the policeman shall have a cause of action for the injury sustained or sickness caused by such third party.

This decision illustrates the basic application of this provision of law

The City of Syracuse initiated a lawsuit pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c(6) in an effort to be reimbursed for the salary and medical expenses it paid on behalf of a police officer who was injured when his patrol car collided with a motor vehicle operated by Marissa L. Williams and owned by her mother, Mary G. Williams [defendants] pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c(1)

Although the police officer had signed a release relieving the defendants from liability arising out of the accident in the course of the officer?s settlement with defendants? insurer, the Appellate Division said this did not bar the City from suing the defendants pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c(6).

Although the settlement agreed to by the officer was valid with respect to the officer?s bodily injuries and pain and suffering, it did not include any payments for any lost wages and medical expenses.

The record showed that the officer did not incur any lost wages or medical expenses as a result of his injuries inasmuch as all such expenses were paid by City in accordance with the mandates of Section 207-c(1) of the General Municipal Law.

Accordingly, said the court, any such payments as damages could not have been within the contemplation of the officer and defendants? insurer in executing the settlement and release.

Here, said the court, the officer?s release pertains only to the officer?s potential causes of action against defendants and not to the City?s statutory cause of action, inasmuch as the City was not a party to the settlement and release and thus is not bound by it.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 14, 2008 (boomark / email).