Hamilton v. City of SchenectadyHamilton v. City of Schenectady
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered December 30, 1993 in Schenectady County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondent City of Schenectady denying petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c.
Petitioner was employed by respondent City of Schenectady as a police officer on August 28, 1986. It is undisputed that petitioner suffers from spondylolisthesis, a congenital condition that causes a predisposition to injuries in the L5-S1 level of the spine. Petitioner sustained a back injury in 1979 and in 1984 underwent a lumbosacral spinal fusion between the transverse processes of the L5 vertebra and the sacrum. Following a repeat spinal fusion performed in May 1985, petitioner was fully recovered, with no medical restrictions on his activities. At the time petitioner was hired by the City in 1986, he was examined and medically cleared for employment as a police officer, with no restrictions on his activities.
Petitioner had no further problems until May 10, 1987 when he was involved in an on-duty vehicular accident, resulting in injuries, among others, to his lower back. Petitioner thereafter began experiencing low back pain radiating down his left leg. On January 14, 1988, he was diagnosed as having a herniated disc at L4-L5. On July 5, 1988, the Workers’ Compensation Board made a finding of accident, notice and causal relationship with regard to injury to petitioner’s back resulting from the May 10, 1987 accident. Petitioner reinjured his back as the result of line-of-duty incidents on October 12, 1990 and April 25, 1992. In July 1992, petitioner’s condition had deteriorated to the point where he was unable to work, and an August 31, 1992 report of petitioner’s treating orthopedist indicated that petitioner was disabled as a result of the May 10, 1987 accident and subsequent reinjuries at work. Petitioner returned to work on October 12, 1992 and performed his duties until March 13, 1993, when increasing pain caused him to call in for leave from his duties. It is undisputed that petitioner has been disabled since March 13, 1993.
We affirm. Implicit in the argument advanced by respondents is the wholly unwarranted position that, no matter how compelling an employee’s showing that his disability arises out of injuries sustained in the performance of his duties, so long as there exists any medical opinion that the disability ultimately derives from a cause predating the employment, the employer may unilaterally and summarily deny or discontinue General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. In Matter of De Poalo v County of Schenectady (
Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.