Wawrzynek v. New York State & Local Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wawrzynek v. New York State & Local Retirement System

291 A.D.2d 627, 736 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 627 (Wawrzynek v. New York State & Local 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

Wawrzynek v. New York State & Local Retirement System, 291 A.D.2d 627, 736 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Crew III, 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 applications for disability retirement benefits and performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a correction officer, filed applications for disability [628]*628retirement benefits and performance of duty disability retirement benefits as the result of an injury to his back sustained during the course of his work. Based upon the medical evidence presented at a hearing, respondent Comptroller found that petitioner was not incapacitated for the performance of his duties and denied the applications. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination, claiming that the Comptroller’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Where, as here, the expert for respondent State and Local Retirement System provides an articulated, rational and fact-based opinion, founded upon a physical examination and review of relevant medical reports and records, the expert’s opinion generally will not be considered so lacking in foundation or rationality as to preclude the Comptroller from exercising the authority to evaluate conflicting medical opinions (see, Matter of Harper v McCall, 277 AD2d 589, 590). Accordingly, despite the contrary opinion expressed by petitioner’s expert, and despite petitioner’s criticisms of the opinions expressed by the Retirement System’s expert, there is no basis upon which to disturb the Comptroller’s finding that petitioner was not incapacitated for the performance of his duties (see, e.g., Matter of Daniels v McCall, 285 AD2d 723, 724). The determination is, therefore, confirmed.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, 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

—Crew III, 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 applications for disability retirement benefits and performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a correction officer, filed applications for disability [628]*628retirement benefits and performance of duty disability retirement benefits as the result of an injury to his back sustained during the course of his work. Based upon the medical evidence presented at a hearing, respondent Comptroller found that petitioner was not incapacitated for the performance of his duties and denied the applications. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination, claiming that the Comptroller’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Where, as here, the expert for respondent State and Local Retirement System provides an articulated, rational and fact-based opinion, founded upon a physical examination and review of relevant medical reports and records, the expert’s opinion generally will not be considered so lacking in foundation or rationality as to preclude the Comptroller from exercising the authority to evaluate conflicting medical opinions (see, Matter of Harper v McCall, 277 AD2d 589, 590). Accordingly, despite the contrary opinion expressed by petitioner’s expert, and despite petitioner’s criticisms of the opinions expressed by the Retirement System’s expert, there is no basis upon which to disturb the Comptroller’s finding that petitioner was not incapacitated for the performance of his duties (see, e.g., Matter of Daniels v McCall, 285 AD2d 723, 724). The determination is, therefore, confirmed.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 627, 736 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wawrzynek-v-new-york-state-local-retirement-system-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack