Citation Numbers: 3 A.D.3d 722, 769 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 304
Judges: Cardona
Filed Date: 1/15/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
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 respondent which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner began working for the police department of the Vil
We find that substantial evidence supports respondent’s determination. Petitioner testified that, upon returning to light duty after his surgery, he worked in an administrative capacity which did not entail any interaction with prisoners or the public. While he described certain physical limitations in his shoulders, right hand, lower back and legs, the medical proof did not conclusively establish that he was unable to perform any of the police duties assigned to him, particularly those which were light in nature.
Although petitioner’s treating orthopedic surgeon indicated, by report dated February 4, 2002, that petitioner was totally disabled from full active duty as a police officer, he acknowledged that petitioner was able to perform sedentary activities as long as he avoided prolonged sitting or standing. The neurologist who examined petitioner on behalf of the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System opined that petitioner suffered a temporary partial disability attributable to spinal radiculopathy and stated that, at the time of his examination, petitioner was not permanently disabled from performing the described duties of either a patrol lieutenant or desk officer. He indicated that, due to petitioner’s relatively young age and the absence of objective neurological findings, petitioner should recover and be able to perform the duties of both positions. Notably, none of the other physicians’ reports expressed definite opinions concerning the extent of petitioner’s incapacitation.
To the extent that there existed conflicts in the medical evidence presented concerning the degree of petitioner’s disability, it was respondent’s responsibility to resolve them (see Matter of Washington v McCall, 297 AD2d 901, 901 [2002]; Matter of Mal
In light of the foregoing disposition, we do not address petitioner’s remaining claims.
Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.