Roach v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roach v. McCall

284 A.D.2d 746, 727 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6637

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 746 (Roach v. McCall) 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

Roach v. McCall, 284 A.D.2d 746, 727 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner was employed as the head bus driver by the Town of Webb Union Free School District from 1969 until his retirement in August 1996 at the age of 62. At that time, petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits, claiming that his right shoulder had been injured as the result of employment-related accidents in 1985, 1995 and 1996, which had incapacitated him from performing the duties performed by a head bus driver. Respondent Comptroller denied petitioner’s application on the ground that, inter alia, petitioner’s condition did not result from employment-related accidents.

At the hearing that ensued, John Cambareri, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon testifying on behalf of respondent State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, opined that petitioner’s disability was the result of traumatic arthritis in his right shoulder stemming from a shoulder dislocation suffered by petitioner as a teenager. Although petitioner’s expert medical witnesses testified to the contrary, it lies within the exclusive authority of the Comptroller to evaluate divergent medical opinions in the process of determining whether a claimant is entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits (see, Matter of DeCarolis v McCall, 272 AD2d 824, 825; Matter of Giebner v McCall, 270 AD2d 705, 706). We conclude that the determination under review is supported by the requisite substantial evidence; hence, it will not be disturbed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner was employed as the head bus driver by the Town of Webb Union Free School District from 1969 until his retirement in August 1996 at the age of 62. At that time, petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits, claiming that his right shoulder had been injured as the result of employment-related accidents in 1985, 1995 and 1996, which had incapacitated him from performing the duties performed by a head bus driver. Respondent Comptroller denied petitioner’s application on the ground that, inter alia, petitioner’s condition did not result from employment-related accidents.

At the hearing that ensued, John Cambareri, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon testifying on behalf of respondent State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, opined that petitioner’s disability was the result of traumatic arthritis in his right shoulder stemming from a shoulder dislocation suffered by petitioner as a teenager. Although petitioner’s expert medical witnesses testified to the contrary, it lies within the exclusive authority of the Comptroller to evaluate divergent medical opinions in the process of determining whether a claimant is entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits (see, Matter of DeCarolis v McCall, 272 AD2d 824, 825; Matter of Giebner v McCall, 270 AD2d 705, 706). We conclude that the determination under review is supported by the requisite substantial evidence; hence, it will not be disturbed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 746, 727 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-mccall-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack