Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Paul KESICK, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of the Comptroller which denied petitioner's request for accidental disability retirement benefits.
Substantial evidence supports the determination denying petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits on the ground that petitioner was not totally disabled from the performance of his duties as a police officer as a result of injuries sustained to his left knee. Based upon his physical examination of petitioner and review of his X rays, David Tucker, an orthopedic surgeon, opined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that petitioner was permanently disabled from the performance of his duties and noted that petitioner's discomfort could be controlled by over-the-counter medication. We reject petitioner's contention that the countervailing medical evidence presented on his behalf was ignored. It is within the Comptroller's authority to assess the conflicting medical evidence and to accept one medical opinion over that of another (see, Matter of Senecal v. McCall, 252 A.D.2d 630, 675 N.Y.S.2d 225; Matter of Hamlet v. McCall, 222 A.D.2d 883, 634 N.Y.S.2d 889). We accordingly find no reason to disturb the Comptroller's determination, notwithstanding that there may be evidence in the record to support a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Spencer v. New York State & Local Empls. Retirement Sys., 220 A.D.2d 792, 793, 631 N.Y.S.2d 789).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 14, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)