ADVERTISEMENTS

Disapproval of an application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits may be annulled only if the determination is arbitrary and capricious
Matter of Tancredi v Town of Harrison/Village of Harrison Police Dept., 2010 NY Slip Op 03136, Decided on April 13, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Chief of Police of the Town of Harrison/Village of Harrison Police Department denied police officer Ralph Tancredi?s application for disability benefits available under General Municipal Law §207-c.

Tancredi filed an Article 78 petition challenging the chief?s decision and Supreme Court, Westchester County, annulled the chief?s determination and awarded Tancredi benefits.

The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court?s ruling, confirming the chief?s action denying Tancredi?s application for §207-c disability benefits ?on the merits.?

According to the decision, in November 2006 Tancredi filed an incident report indicating that he had injured his hand and back while trying to subdue an emotionally disturbed person at the police station. Notwithstanding this, Tancredi did not miss any work until June 2007, at which time he was served with disciplinary charges involving an unrelated matter* and suspended with pay.

The Appellate Division said that a determination denying an application for General Municipal Law §207-c benefits may be annulled only if it is arbitrary and capricious and a denial of such an application is not arbitrary and capricious if it has a rational basis.

Pointing out that the applicant for GML §207-c benefits has the burden of proving a direct causal relationship between his or her job duties and the injury or illness for which disability benefits are sought, the Appellate Division said that Tancredi ?in support of his application for benefits, ? submitted medical records showing that he commenced medical treatment for the subject injuries ? more than a year after the incident which allegedly caused the injuries."

While the medical records Tancredi provided to the Chief of Police prior to his determination showed that, commencing in December 2007, Tancredi sought medical treatment and reported to his medical providers that his condition was caused by the November 2006 incident, he did not submit clear medical proof or any medical opinion as to causation. Thus, said the court, the denial of Tancredi's application for §207-c disability benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Tancredi also contended that the fact that the Chief of Police had preferred two sets of unrelated disciplinary charges against him ?undermine[s] the impartiality of the Chief of Police? so as to render the chief's otherwise rational denial of Tancredi's application for benefits arbitrary and capricious.

The Appellate Division rejected this argument, and dismissed Tancredi's appeal, commenting that ?the petition should have been denied, the determination confirmed, and the proceeding dismissed? by Supreme Court.

* A second set of disciplinary charges, involving yet a different unrelated matter, were preferred against Tancredi in October 2007.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_03136.htm

.
============================================

If you are interested in learning more about General Municipal Law §207-a or §207-c disability benefits and procedures please click here:

============================================

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.