In the Matter of Herbert I.
White,
Respondent,
v.
County of Cortland,
Appellant.
2002 NY Int. 21
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
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 his work
as a Cortland County corrections officer." The Hearing Officer
denied petitioner's claim on the basis that the job-related
duties did not cause or contribute to his disability in a
"substantial degree," as purportedly required under GML § 207-c.[1]
The County adopted the decision of the Hearing Officer, and
denied petitioner's claim. In response to petitioner's article
78 petition seeking to annul the County's determination, Supreme
Court concluded that the Hearing Officer had improperly raised
General Municipal Law § 207-c(1) entitles corrections officers to certain enumerated benefits, including the payment of salary or wages and the cost of medical treatment and hospital care, where the officer "is injured in the performance of his duties or * * * is taken sick as a result of the performance of his duties." As we recognized in Matter of Balcerak v County of Nassau (94 2 253 [1999]), section 207-c is intended "to compensate specified municipal employees for injuries incurred in the performance of special work related to the nature of heightened risks and duties," in contrast to the more generalized and comprehensive protections provided by the Workers' Compensation Law (id. at 259-260). Moreover, we have made clear that, as a remedial statute, section 207-c should be liberally construed in favor of the injured employees the statute was designed to protect (see generally Matter of Mashnouk v Miles, , 55 NY2d 80, 88 [1982]).
In the case now before us, the administrative
determinations were affected by an error of law as they applied a
heightened standard of proof in determining that petitioner was
ineligible for section 207-c benefits. Section 207-c provides
benefits to officers who are disabled "in the performance of" or
"as a result of" their job duties and does not require that they
additionally demonstrate that their disability is related in a
Rather, consistent with a liberal reading of section 207-c, a qualified petitioner need only prove a direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury (see e.g. Fasanaro v County of Rockland, 166 Misc 2d 152 [1995], affd 237 AD2d 436 [2d Dept], lv dismissed , 90 NY2d 913 [1997]; Matter of Meyers v Loughren, 228 AD2d 927 [3d Dept 1996]). Preexisting non-work-related conditions do not bar recovery under section 207-c where petitioner demonstrates that the job duties were a direct cause of the disability.
Here, the Hearing Officer found that petitioner's
disability was attributable to a line-of-duty illness, in
addition to his preexisting work-related condition. Supreme
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Footnotes
1 The Hearing Officer also denied petitioner's claim for additional payments related to his prior disability. Those claims are not before us.