From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Mayo v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 17, 1998
253 A.D.2d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

September 17, 1998


Petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits alleging that he was permanently disabled from the performance of his duties as a mental hygiene therapy aide as a result of two incidents occurring in July 1989 and September 1990. Respondent Comptroller denied petitioner's application on the grounds that the July 1989 incident did not constitute an "accident" within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 Retire. Soc. Sec. and that petitioner failed to establish that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this determination.

We confirm. Substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's finding that petitioner is not entitled to benefits. The record demonstrate that the July 1989 incident occurred when petitioner had lifted a patient from a van in the ordinary performance of his duties and, therefore, the injury sustained does not constitute an accident ( see, Matter of Landestoy v. Regan, 207 A.D.2d 572. As to whether petitioner was permanently incapacitated, the orthopedic surgeon who evaluated petitioner on behalf of respondent State and Local Employees' Retirement System characterized petitioner's restriction of motion as voluntary and inconsistent throughout the course of the examination. It was this expert's opinion that the X ray and MRIs that he reviewed indicated a degenerative change reflecting nothing more than normal aging and concluded that petitioner was physically able to perform his job duties. The contrary testimony of petitioner's medical expert presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Comptroller ( see, Matter of Nicholson v. McCall, 250 A.D.2d 994, 995; Matter of Dubois v. McCall, 239 A.D.2d 774, 775). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Comptroller's determination.

Cardona, P.J., White, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Mayo v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 17, 1998
253 A.D.2d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Mayo v. McCall

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HENRY MAYO, Petitioner, v. H. CARL McCALL, as Comptroller…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 17, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 154

Citing Cases

Matter of Pellino v. McCall

According to Dentinger, his neurological examination of petitioner disclosed no functional limitation or…

Matter of McCann v. McCall

Although Sharma's December 1995 report acknowledges that petitioner may have a mild degree of Parkinson's…