Denton v. McCall, 65 N.Y.2d 748 (1985)

An accidental injury, for the purpose of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, is a sudden, unexpected event that is not part of the normal risks inherent in the job.

Summary

This case concerns a fireman who injured his leg after catching his heel on a fire truck’s running board and landing in a pothole. The Comptroller denied his application for accidental injury retirement benefits, arguing the injury was not accidental. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that while catching his heel might be a risk of the job, landing in a pothole was a sudden, unexpected event constituting an accidental injury as a matter of law. The court emphasized the unexpected nature of the pothole as the decisive factor.

Facts

The petitioner, a fireman in Rochester, was exiting a fire truck. He was wearing approved safety shoes and descending at a normal speed. While exiting, he caught his right heel on the running board of the truck. This caused him to lose his balance. He then landed with his left leg in a pothole, resulting in an injury.

Procedural History

The Comptroller, after a hearing, determined that the fireman’s injury was not an accidental injury within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. This determination considered precedents set in Matter of McCambridge v McGuire and Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees. The Appellate Division affirmed the Comptroller’s decision. The Court of Appeals then reviewed and reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment.

Issue(s)

Whether a fireman’s injury, sustained when he caught his heel on a fire truck’s running board and landed in a pothole, constitutes an “accidental injury” within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, thus entitling him to accidental disability retirement benefits?

Holding

Yes, because while catching a heel on a running board may be a risk of the job, coming down hard upon the other foot in a pothole is a sudden, unexpected event and therefore qualifies as an accidental injury under the law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that the Comptroller’s denial of benefits was incorrect as a matter of law. The court distinguished between the inherent risks of the job (catching a heel) and the unexpected nature of the specific event that caused the injury (landing in a pothole). The court reasoned that the injury was the result of a sudden, unexpected event not part of the normal risks of being a fireman. Quoting Matter of McCambridge v McGuire, the court emphasized that the unexpected nature of the event is critical in determining whether an injury is accidental. The court stated, “Catching a heel on a running board and thus losing balance may be a risk of the work performed, but coming down hard upon the other foot in a pothole is not. Thus, it was a sudden, unexpected event.” This distinction highlighted that while some aspects of the event might be anticipated within the scope of a fireman’s duties, the ultimate cause of the injury (the pothole) was not, thereby satisfying the legal definition of an accidental injury. This case clarifies that even when an initial event is work-related, a subsequent, unexpected event directly contributing to the injury can qualify it as accidental for retirement benefit purposes. The Court remitted the matter back to the Comptroller for further proceedings consistent with its memorandum, implying that the fireman was entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits.