McDermott v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 79 N.Y.2d 403 (1992)
The line-of-duty presumption for firefighters’ heart-related retirement disability benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-a(1) should not be read into General Municipal Law § 207-a, which governs firefighters’ sick leave benefits.
Summary
This case concerns whether a statutory presumption that heart-related disabilities in firefighters are line-of-duty injuries applies to sick leave benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a, in addition to retirement disability benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-a. The Court of Appeals held that the presumption does not extend to section 207-a benefits. The court reasoned that the legislative history and statutory context of section 363-a indicate it was intended to apply solely to retirement benefits, not to broaden the scope of sick leave benefits under section 207-a. This decision clarifies the distinct disability systems and their differing coverage and consequences.
Facts
The petitioner, McDermott, a firefighter, began his employment in January 1971 after passing a physical exam. He was suspended in May 1984 on charges of misconduct. While suspended, in June 1984, he experienced chest pain and was hospitalized, diagnosed with a nontransmural myocardial infarction. Further examination revealed coronary artery disease and angina, rendering him unable to perform his firefighting duties. McDermott applied for full salary and medical expenses under General Municipal Law § 207-a.
Procedural History
The Board of Fire Commissioners denied McDermott’s application. He then commenced an Article 78 proceeding to annul the Board’s determination. Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division, which granted the petition, relying on Traver v. City of Poughkeepsie, and remitted the matter for calculation of back pay. The Appellate Division concluded that the presumption in Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-a(1) applied to section 207-a claims. The Board appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the line-of-duty presumption contained in Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-a(1) applies to firefighters seeking disability benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a.
Holding
No, because the legislative intent and statutory context demonstrate that the presumption in section 363-a(1) applies only to retirement benefits and not to sick leave benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that statutory interpretation must discern and apply the will of the Legislature, considering the statutory context and legislative history. The court noted that section 363-a was initially limited to retirement matters. While a 1973 amendment removed explicit limitations to retirement claims, this did not implicitly amend General Municipal Law § 207-a. The court reasoned that if the legislature intended to broaden the scope of section 207-a, it would have amended that section directly. Sections 207-a and 363-a represent separate disability systems with differing coverage and consequences. Section 207-a applies to members of an organized fire company or fire department, while section 363-a applies to “members” of a retirement system. Additionally, benefits under 207-a are paid by the municipality, whereas section 363 benefits are paid by the retirement system. The legislative history of the 1973 amendment contains no reference to General Municipal Law § 207-a. The court distinguished this case from Uniformed Firefighters Assn. v Beekman, where a presumption was found in General Municipal Law § 207-k due to extensive legislative history and consistent practical application. The Court stated, “Unlike the General Municipal Law, article 8 of the Retirement and Social Security Law (containing § 363-a) — entitled ‘New York State Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement System’ — specifically governs retirement matters.” Therefore, the court concluded that the Appellate Division erred in reading the section 363-a presumption into General Municipal Law § 207-a.