Opinion
524878
03-22-2018
In the Matter of Valaida DECARLIS, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Respondents.
Valaida DeCarlis, Rochester, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondents.
Valaida DeCarlis, Rochester, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondents.
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
McCarthy, J.P.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 the Comptroller denying petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner, a housing specialist, applied for disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law article 15, contending that she was permanently incapacitated from performing her job duties as the result of rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative disc disease and pain. The application initially was denied, and petitioner thereafter requested a hearing and redetermination. Following that hearing, the Hearing Officer upheld the denial, finding that petitioner failed to meet her burden of demonstrating permanent incapacitation. The Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer's decision, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. As an applicant seeking disability retirement benefits, petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that she is permanently incapacitated from the performance of her job duties (see Matter of Federighi v. DiNapoli, 151 A.D.3d 1162, 1163, 55 N.Y.S.3d 808 [2017] ; Matter of Aliperti v. DiNapoli, 138 A.D.3d 1378, 1379, 30 N.Y.S.3d 406 [2016] ; Matter of Carmody–Kapral v. New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 105 A.D.3d 1212, 1212, 965 N.Y.S.2d 201 [2013] ). In this regard, the Comptroller "is vested with the authority to resolve conflicting medical evidence ... and to credit one expert's opinion over another, and his determination will be sustained if supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Aliperti v. DiNapoli, 138 A.D.3d at 1379, 30 N.Y.S.3d 406 ; see Matter of Loysen v. New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 100 A.D.3d 1168, 1169, 953 N.Y.S.2d 734 [2012] ).
At the hearing, claimant testified as to her physical limitations and relied upon documentary evidence to support her claim of permanent incapacitation, including a statement of disability provided by her primary care physician and a disability questionnaire completed by her rheumatologist. The primary care physician's statement, however, indicated that petitioner was disabled "per [her] rheumatologist," and the rheumatologist, in turn, failed to answer certain key questions on the disability questionnaire, including whether petitioner was "permanently disable[d] ... from performing all the duties of [her] present position." Additionally, reports were received from Louis Nunez, the orthopedic surgeon who conducted an independent medical examination of petitioner, and Allan Smiley, the rheumatologist who performed a disability evaluation of petitioner, both of whom were of the view that petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from the performance of her duties as a result of her degenerative disc disease and/or rheumatoid arthritis. Specifically, Nunez observed that petitioner's range of motion was "subjectively restricted" and that "there was a certain element of symptom embellishment" in her presentation, and Smiley noted "a major discrepancy" in the results of petitioner's straight leg raise test when such assessment was performed in a seated versus supine position. Their resulting opinions, which were each based upon a physical examination of petitioner, consideration of her underlying history and a review of her medical records and job description/duties, constitute substantial evidence to support the Comptroller's finding that petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing her duties as a housing specialist (see Matter of O'Keefe v. DiNapoli, 89 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 934 N.Y.S.2d 536 [2011] ; Matter of Rogers v. DiNapoli, 78 A.D.3d 1472, 1473, 911 N.Y.S.2d 504 [2010] ; cf. Matter of Loysen v. New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 100 A.D.3d at 1169, 953 N.Y.S.2d 734 ). Petitioner's remaining arguments have been examined and found to be lacking in merit—including her assertion that the Comptroller improperly based his determination upon the actual duties she performed rather than her stated job description (see 2 NYCRR 364.1 ; Matter of Dee v. DiNapoli, 154 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 62 N.Y.S.3d 204 [2017]; Matter of Riguzzi v. DiNapoli, 82 A.D.3d 1484, 1485, 918 N.Y.S.2d 905 [2011] ; Matter of O'Halpin v. New York State Comptroller, 12 A.D.3d 771, 772, 783 N.Y.S.2d 727 [2004], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 702, 799 N.Y.S.2d 772, 832 N.E.2d 1188 [2005] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.