Burnham v. McCallBurnham v. McCall
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 Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner, a correction officer employed by the Nassau County Sheriff’s Department, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits in November 1995. She alleges that she was permanently incapacitated from the performance of her duties as a result of carpal tunnel syndrome in her right hand caused by work-related incidents which occurred in December 1992 and October 1994. After a hearing, petitioner’s application was denied on the ground that she had failed to sustain
Because petitioner did not have 10 years of service credit when she applied for disability retirement benefits, she bore the burden of demonstrating that her incapacitation was the consequence of an accident (see, Matter of Bowns v McCall,
However, petitioner’s expert opined that petitioner has advanced carpal tunnel syndrome and is permanently disabled by reason of the nerve damage causally related to the October 1994 incident, wherein she suffered a possible fracture and crush injury to the hand while attempting to break up an inmate fight; results of two EMG and nerve conduction tests are consistent with this opinion. An expert for respondent New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System testified that his clinical findings were compatible with mild carpal tunnel syndrome and that while this condition can be caused by degenerative changes, repetitive motions or by trauma if the blow is severe enough, based on the physical examination he conducted of petitioner he could not determine whether it was in fact induced traumatically. But this expert offered no opinion as to the cause of petitioner’s carpal tunnel syndrome and, significantly, failed to exclude the October 1994 accident as a cause.
Although the Comptroller is vested with exclusive authority to evaluate and resolve conflicts in medical testimony (see, e.g., Matter of Principe v McCall,
Respondents argue that there is substantial evidence to sup
Mikoll, J. P, Mercure, Crew III and Carpinello, JJ, concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, with costs, and matter remitted to respondent Comptroller for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.