Helmer v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System

305 A.D.2d 949, 761 N.Y.S.2d 124, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6090
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 29, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 949 (Helmer v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Helmer v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System, 305 A.D.2d 949, 761 N.Y.S.2d 124, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Peters, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, employed as a correction officer during the period between December 1985 and July 1996, spent most of his career at the Clinton Correction Facility in Clinton County, a maximum security prison. His assignment to a protective custody housing block required his intervention into physical altercations which occurred on at least eight occasions.

[950]*950In March and June 1990, petitioner underwent surgery to treat several brain aneurisms and, thereafter, received a blood transfusion. Upon returning to work in August 1990, he experienced vomiting, diarrhea, extreme fatigue, arthritic joint pain and abdominal pain. In October 1990, he was diagnosed with hepatitis C. In 1996, petitioner went on leave without pay and, thereafter, filed an application for retirement disability incurred in the performance of duty alleging, among other things, “chronic active hepatitis influenza type C.” After a hearing, it was recommended that his application be denied. Respondent Comptroller agreed and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We reject petitioner’s claim of hearing officer bias grounded upon questions proffered to an expert regarding the meaning of “gold bricker’s disease.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zlotnick v. City of Saratoga Springs
122 A.D.3d 1210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Brennan v. New York State & Local Employees Retirement System
50 A.D.3d 1374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Compasso v. Sheriff of Sullivan County
29 A.D.3d 1064 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Correll v. Bucci
19 A.D.3d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Rogers v. Sherburne-Earlville Central School District
17 A.D.3d 823 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 A.D.2d 949, 761 N.Y.S.2d 124, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helmer-v-new-york-state-local-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-2003.