 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISABILITY DUTIES COUNTY PETITIONER HEART ATTACK HEARING OFFICER MATTER JOB DUTIES CORRECTIONS OFFICER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WORK-RELATED HEART ATTACK APPELLANT STANDARD AFFIRM AD2D NY2D STATUTE RESPONDENT OPINION CHIEF JUDGE CONTRIBUTING QUALIFY SUFFER PREEXISTING HEART DISEASE EMPLOYEES NON-WORK-RELATED CONDITION DETERMINATION SUPREME COURT |
3 No. 18
In the Matter of Herbert I. White,
Respondent,
v.
County of Cortland,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 21
March 14, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Michael G. Surowka, for appellant.
Paul T. Sheppard, for respondent.
Onondaga County, et al., amici curić.
_________________________________________________________________
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
Is a corrections officer required to prove that performance of his job
duties caused or contributed to his disability in a substantial degree
in order to qualify for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c?
We answer that question in the negative.
Petitioner began working as a full-time corrections officer for
defendant County in 1989. On June 18, 1995, he suffered a work-related
heart attack that disabled him from performing his duties through
October 31, 1995. He then returned to work on a modified-duty basis
until June 13, 1996, when he experienced chest pains and shortness of
breath. His treating physician recommended that he not continue that
work, and his subsequent request for medical leave was granted.
At a hearing to determine petitioner's eligibility for General
Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, the evidence showed that petitioner's
current disability was attributable in part to the 1995 work-related
heart attack, and in part to other factors, including preexisting
coronary artery disease, stress, a long history of smoking and a
family predisposition to heart disease. Petitioner also suffered a
heart attack prior to his employment by the County, although this did
not affect his ability to exercise. The Hearing Officer found that
petitioner's disability "is attributable to both a line-of-duty
sickness and a pre- existing non-work-related condition," and further
concluded that "less than 25% of (petitioner's) disability relates to
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
