New York Law Review

Tag: Accidental Injury Definition

  • Starnella v. Bratton, 92 N.Y.2d 837 (1998): Defining ‘Accidental Injury’ for Police Disability Pensions

    Starnella v. Bratton, 92 N.Y.2d 837 (1998)

    For a police officer’s injury to be considered an ‘accidental injury’ entitling them to accidental disability benefits, the injury must result from a sudden, fortuitous mischance that is unexpected and out of the ordinary, not simply from performing routine duties.

    Summary

    This case involves two police officers seeking accidental disability retirement benefits. Officer Starnella fell down stairs, while Sergeant Gasparino slipped on water in a bathroom. The Medical Board found both incidents to be accidental injuries. However, the Board of Trustees deadlocked on the issue, denying them accidental disability pensions. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision regarding Gasparino, finding his injury accidental as a matter of law, but affirmed the denial of benefits to Starnella, holding his fall was not sufficiently unexpected or out of the ordinary.

    Facts

    Officer Starnella fell down a flight of stairs while on duty. Sergeant Gasparino slipped on a pool of water in a police station bathroom while on duty. Both officers sought accidental disability retirement benefits under the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

    Procedural History

    The Medical Board initially concluded that both officers had suffered accidental injuries. The Board of Trustees, however, reached a tie vote on whether the injuries were accidental, effectively denying the officers accidental disability pensions. The officers then filed CPLR article 78 challenges. The lower courts upheld the Board of Trustees’ determinations. The Court of Appeals heard the consolidated appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Sergeant Gasparino’s slip and fall on water in a bathroom constitutes an ‘accidental injury’ as a matter of law, entitling him to accidental disability benefits.
    2. Whether Officer Starnella’s fall down a flight of stairs constitutes an ‘accidental injury’ as a matter of law, entitling him to accidental disability benefits.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because Sergeant Gasparino’s injury resulted from an unexpected and out-of-the-ordinary event analogous to slipping on wet pavement.
    2. No, because Officer Starnella’s fall down the stairs, without more, was not sufficiently out-of-the-ordinary or unexpected to qualify as an accidental injury.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court relied on its prior decisions in Matter of Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees and Matter of McCambridge v. McGuire, which defined an accident as a “sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact.” The court distinguished between injuries resulting from routine duties and those stemming from unexpected events. Regarding Gasparino, the Court reasoned that slipping on water in a bathroom was similar to the accidental injury in McCambridge, where an officer slipped on wet pavement. The Court stated, “Indeed, slipping and falling on wet pavement on a rainy day is no less a sudden and unexpected event than Sergeant Gasparino’s misadventure involving a pool of water in the bathroom.” However, the court found that Starnella’s fall down the stairs, absent any extraordinary circumstances, was not an ‘accident’ as contemplated by the statute. As the court noted, “A fall down the stairs as a result of one’s own misstep, without more, is not so out-of-the-ordinary or unexpected as to constitute an accidental injury as a matter of law.” This case clarifies that to qualify for accidental disability benefits, the injury must be the result of an unforeseen event that is not a normal risk of police work. The court emphasized the need for a “precipitating accidental event * * * which was not a risk of the work performed.”

  • Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees, 57 N.Y.2d 1010 (1982): Defining ‘Accidental Injury’ for Disability Retirement

    Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees, 57 N.Y.2d 1010 (1982)

    For purposes of accidental disability retirement benefits, an ‘accident’ is defined as a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact.

    Summary

    This case defines the term “accident” within the context of New York City Administrative Code § B18-43.0, concerning accidental disability retirement for city employees. The Court of Appeals held that a police officer who sustained a back injury while performing a routine task (leaning over a car hood to place a summons) did not suffer an “accidental injury” as contemplated by the statute. The injury was not the result of a sudden, unexpected event, but rather an ordinary activity performed in the course of his duties.

    Facts

    The petitioner, a New York City police officer, injured his back while leaning over the hood of an automobile to place a summons on the vehicle. He subsequently applied for accidental disability retirement benefits, claiming the injury incapacitated him from performing his duties.

    Procedural History

    The Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund denied the petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. The Appellate Division reversed the Board’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Board’s original determination.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a back injury sustained while leaning over the hood of an automobile in order to place a summons on the vehicle constitutes an “accidental injury” within the meaning of New York City Administrative Code § B18-43.0, thereby entitling the petitioner to accidental disability retirement benefits.

    Holding

    No, because the injury occurred without an unexpected event as a result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties. The injury, therefore, does not qualify as an accidental injury within the meaning of section B18-43.0.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals adopted a “commonsense definition” of accident, defining it as a “sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” quoting Johnson Corp. v Indemnity Ins. Co. of North Amer., 6 AD2d 97, 100, affd 7 NY2d 222. The court reasoned that not every line-of-duty injury qualifies for accidental disability retirement; the injury must result from an accident. The court emphasized that the 1940 amendment to the statute added the express requirement that the line-of-duty injury be incurred as the result of an accident. The court distinguished between injuries resulting from unexpected events and those that occur as a result of ordinary job duties. Because the police officer’s injury resulted from a common task, and not from an unexpected event, the court determined that it did not meet the definition of an accidental injury. The court cited similar cases, like Matter of Covel v New York State Employees’ Retirement System, 84 AD2d 902, mot for lv to app den 55 NY2d 606 and Matter of Panek v Regan, 81 AD2d 738, for comparison. The Court explicitly stated that “an injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties, considered in view of the particular employment in question, is not an accidental injury within the meaning of section B18-43.0”.