Russell v. N.Y.C. Fire Pension Fund

12 Citing cases

  1. Barnabee v. The N.Y.C. Fire Pension Fund

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 31135 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Here, this court finds that the denial of ADR benefits to petitioner was supported by credible evidence and, thus, not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Russell v NY City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442 [ 1st Dept 2021 ]; Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art.l-B Pension Fund, 90 N.Y.2d 139, 145 [1997]; Matter of Dominguez v O'Neill, 179 A.D.3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2020].) The determination that petitioner's disability was not the proximate result from the alleged incident is based upon credible medical evidence, including the MRI showing the presence of para-labral cyst formation on petitioner's left hip, which denoted "chronicity of disease,' and revealed that the congenital deformity and degenerative changes were present before the injury, and the Medical Board's assessment that there was not an acute injury.

  2. Carter v. N.Y.C. Employees' Ret. Sys.

    199 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

    Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 17, 2020, denying the petition to vacate respondents’ determination, dated March 12, 2020, which denied petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirement, and dismissing the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The determination by the Medical Board that petitioner's workplace injury was not the cause of her disability is based on credible evidence, and accordingly, respondents’ determination denying performance of duty disability retirement benefits was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter ofRussell v. New York City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442, 443, 139 N.Y.S.3d 805 [1st Dept. 2021] ). Respondents properly relied upon the Medical Board's unanimous opinion as to causation, made after considering her case four times (seeid.

  3. Lamar v. Nigro

    203 N.Y.S.3d 66 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    The court should have deferred to the Medical Board’s expertise (seeMatter of Creegan v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Police Pension Fund Art. II, 7 A.D.3d 335, 335, 775 N.Y.S.2d 867 [1st Dept. 2004]). It cannot be determined as a matter of law that the arthritis and other degenerative conditions suffered by petitioner were exacerbated by the line of duty incidents (see Matter of Meyer v. Board of Trustees of N. Y. City Fire Dept., Art. I-B Pension Fund, 90 N.Y.2d 139, 151-152, 659 N.Y.S.2d 215, 681 N.E.2d 382 [1997]; Matter of Russell v. New York City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442, 443, 139 N.Y.S.3d 805 [1st Dept. 2021]).

  4. Lamar v. Nigro

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 136 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    The court should have deferred to the Medical Board's expertise (see Matter of Creegan v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Police Pension Fund Art. II, 7 A.D.3d 335, 335 [1st Dept 2004]). It cannot be determined as a matter of law that the arthritis and other degenerative conditions suffered by petitioner were exacerbated by the line of duty incidents (see Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. I-B Pension Fund, 90 N.Y.2d 139, 151-152 [1997]; Matter of Russell v New York City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2021]).

  5. Martorana v. N.Y.C. Fire Pension Fund

    217 A.D.3d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    Petitioner did not establish through medical or other evidence that his asymptomatic preexisting conditions were exacerbated by the accident (see Matter of Russell v New York City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Pastalove v Kelly, 120 A.D.3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2014]).

  6. Ramos v. O'Neill

    210 A.D.3d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    concluded that petitioner suffered from degenerative disc disease, and petitioner was able to return to full duty for more than two years following the line-of-duty injury. While petitioner's treating surgeon concluded that petitioner's spinal condition was causally related to the line-of-duty injury, resolution of this conflict in evidence fell within the sole province of the NYCERS Medical Board and the Board of Trustees (see Matter of Russell v. New York City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442, 442, 139 N.Y.S.3d 805 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Higgins v. Kelly, 84 A.D.3d 520, 520–521, 921 N.Y.S.2d 856 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 806, 2012 WL 444070 [2012] ). Further, the Board of Trustees properly relied upon the NYCERS Medical Board's finding of lack of causation (see Matter of Guzman v. Safir, 293 A.D.2d 281, 281, 739 N.Y.S.2d 707 [2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 614, 751 N.Y.S.2d 169, 780 N.E.2d 980 [2002] ).

  7. Kearney v. Nigro

    209 A.D.3d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, it cannot be determined as a matter of law that the petitioner's disability was caused by his May 2015 accident. Moreover, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record does not support a determination, as a matter of law, that his pre-existing degenerative condition was exacerbated by the accident (see Matter of Tobin v. Steisel, 64 N.Y.2d 254, 258–259, 485 N.Y.S.2d 730, 475 N.E.2d 101 ; Matter of Russell v. New York City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442, 443, 139 N.Y.S.3d 805 ; Matter of Ryan v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1–B Pension Fund, 247 A.D.2d 480, 481, 668 N.Y.S.2d 683 ; Matter of Connelly v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1–B Pension Fund, 237 A.D.2d at 603, 655 N.Y.S.2d 597 ). Although the Medical Board's findings as to causation differed from those of the petitioner's surgeon, who characterized the petitioner's arthrosis as "post-traumatic," the Medical Board explained that it disagreed with that characterization, since there was no basis for it in the petitioner's medical records.

  8. Dimino v. Shea

    202 A.D.3d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Petitioner argues that following the line-of-duty injury in August 2014, he suffered a disabling condition on the right side of his body, but in 2008, his injuries were on the left side. However, the Medical Board noted that petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting that claim and the medical reports in the record indicate that petitioner had medical conditions that impacted the right side of his body in 2008, and the left side post-incident (see Matter ofRussell v. New York City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442, 443, 139 N.Y.S.3d 805 [1st Dept. 2021] ). We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

  9. Dimino v. Shea

    No. 2022-01239 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 24, 2022)

    Petitioner argues that following the line-of-duty injury in August 2014, he suffered a disabling condition on the right side of his body, but in 2008, his injuries were on the left side. However, the Medical Board noted that petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting that claim and the medical reports in the record indicate that petitioner had medical conditions that impacted the right side of his body in 2008, and the left side post-incident (see Matter of Russell v New York City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2021]). We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

  10. Carter v. N.Y.C. Employees' Ret. Sys.

    No. 2021-06031 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 4, 2021)

    Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 17, 2020, denying the petition to vacate respondents' determination, dated March 12, 2020, which denied petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirement, and dismissing the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The determination by the Medical Board that petitioner's workplace injury was not the cause of her disability is based on credible evidence, and accordingly, respondents' determination denying performance of duty disability retirement benefits was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Russell v New York City Fire Pension Fund, 192 A.D.3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2021]). Respondents properly relied upon the Medical Board's unanimous opinion as to causation, made after considering her case four times (see id. at 443; Matter of Christian v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 56 N.Y.2d 841, 843 [1982]).