CompFox AI Summary
This appeal addresses the proper standard for judicial review of a determination by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) Medical Board regarding an applicant's physical disability for city-service. The respondent, an Assistant Deputy Warden, sought accidental disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries at Rikers Island, but the Medical Board repeatedly found her not medically disabled despite conflicting medical opinions. While the Supreme Court initially dismissed her petition, the Appellate Division reversed, granting her pension. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the Medical Board’s determination as it was based on 'some credible evidence' and was not arbitrary or capricious. The court emphasized that the Medical Board has the authority to resolve conflicting medical evidence and that judicial review should not substitute its judgment for the Board's.
Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement System is a workers' compensation case decided in New York Court of Appeals. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in New York Court of Appeals.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This appeal addresses the proper standard for judicial review of a determination by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) Medical Board regarding an applicant's physical disability for city-service. The respondent, an Assistant Deputy Warden, sought accidental disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries at Rikers Island, but the Medical Board repeatedly found her not medically disabled despite conflicting medical opinions. While the Supreme Court initially dismissed her petition, the Appellate Division reversed, granting her pension. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the Medical Board’s determination as it was based on 'some credible evidence' and was not arbitrary or capricious. The court emphasized that the Medical Board has the authority to resolve conflicting medical evidence and that judicial review should not substitute its judgment for the Board's.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.