 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Massi12/22/2004
that petitioner was suffering from a serious mental disorder requiring ongoing psychiatric treatment, and further found that petitioner was not capable of returning to work. The Superintendent's doctor, however, advised the Superintendent that petitioner had refused to consent to the release of his medical records. The Superintendent used that as evidence that petitioner's illness was not job-related.
The corrections officer commenced an Article 78 proceeding and the court annulled the determination denying petitioner GML § 207-c benefits. Thereafter, the Superintendent sought renewal of the court's determination by providing a new letter from the Superintendent's doctor wherein he stated that he did not believe that petitioner's illness was directly caused by his employment at the Rockland County Correction Facility. The Court granted renewal and set the matter down for a hearing. In the interim, petitioner was denied GML § 207-c benefits and placed on an involuntary leave of absence. The court held a hearing on July 13, 1995, and at the end of the hearing, the court found that " petitioner had sustained his burden of proving a causal relationship between his illness and his employment" i.e., that "petitioner, regardless of any predisposition to a personality disorder, was caused to and did suffer from a mental disorder directly caused by events occurring in the workplace." (Fasanaro, 166 Misc 2d at 155-156).
Thus, the court awarded judgment to petitioner on his Article 78 petition and annulled the respondents' determination denying benefits. The court directed respondents to classify petitioner's disability as work related, and held that "where stress is produced on the job , stress-related anxiety disorders are considered to arise out of and in the course of employment, and the resultant disability is causally related thereto ...." (Id. at 156).
Similarly, in Matter of Fiorella v. Village of Scarsdale, 96 Misc 2d 406, petitioner was removed from the Village of Scarsdale's payroll for failing to abide by the Village's order, which required that he perform limited duty work. In that case, as in this one, petitioner's doctor had stated in a letter to the Village that petitioner was unable to perform any work. The Village responded that it was the opinion of the Village's doctor that petitioner was physically fit to perform limited duties, and that if he failed to report for limited duties, he would be removed from the payroll. When petitioner failed to report for such limited duty work on the grounds that he was unfit for duty, respondent Village notified petitioner that he had been removed from the payroll. Furthermore, the Village refused to grant petitioner a hearing.
The Village argued that because it had been advised that petitioner was physically fit to perform limited duty, and because petitioner refused to do so, the Village had no alternative but to remove him based upon non performance of duty pursuant to GML § 207-c(3). In that case, because it was an actual termination rather than a suspension, the Court found that petitioner was a permanent member of the police force and was entitled to the procedural protections afforded by Section 8-804 of the Village Law and Section 5711-q(9) of the Unconsolidated Laws.
The court found that it was undisputed that petitioner's injuries were job related, which, according to the court, afforded petitioner a property right to uninterrupted payments pursuant to GML § 207-c. Because respondent had removed petitioner from the payroll without having been afforded the right to a hearing, the court reinstated petitioner with back pay and any other benefits, less the amount of compensation he had earned in any other em
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|