From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ruzicka v. Board of Trustees

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted April 30, 2001.

May 21, 2001.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, dated July 31, 1998, which denied the petitioner's application for an accident disability pension and retired him on ordinary disability, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated July 19, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Jeffrey L. Goldberg, P.C., Elmhurst, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Magda M. Deconinck of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J. CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN NANCY E. SMITH BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner retired from the New York City Fire Department in 1996. The New York City Fire Department Pension Fund Article 1-B Medical Board (hereinafter the Medical Board) concluded, upon review of the medical evidence, that the petitioner was disabled due to ulcerative colitis and discal compression fractures. The petitioner contends that his disability was also due to atrial fibrillation which would allow him to receive additional retirement benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-k. After a series of medical reviews, the Medical Board adhered to its original determination.

The courts cannot weigh the medical evidence or substitute their own judgment for that of the Medical Board if the Medical Board's determination is supported by any credible evidence and is not irrational (see, Matter of Meyer v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 N.Y.2d 139; Matter of Santoro v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 217 A.D.2d 660). The Medical Board made a thoughtful and comprehensive review of all of the medical evidence before concluding that the petitioner should receive disability only due to ulcerative colitis and his back condition. Since the recommendation of the Medical Board was based upon credible evidence, the reliance of the Board of Trustees on the recommendation and its determination retiring the petitioner on ordinary disability was proper (see, Matter of Meyer v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra, Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 N.Y.2d 756; Matter of Santoro v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra).

BRACKEN, P.J., O'BRIEN, SMITH and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Ruzicka v. Board of Trustees

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Ruzicka v. Board of Trustees

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF MILTON RUZICKA, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NEW…

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

Date published: May 21, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 905

Citing Cases

Tesoriero v. N.Y. Fire Dept

If there is a difference in medical opinion on petitioner's non-disability, such difference does not render…

MATTER OF VINE v. KELLY

In an Article 78 proceeding challenging a disability determination, the Medical Board's finding will be…