New York Law Review

Tag: Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs)

  • Sullivan v. New York City Employees’ Retirement System, 3 N.Y.3d 641 (2004): Eligibility for Special Medical Review Committee for EMTs

    Sullivan v. New York City Employees’ Retirement System, 3 N.Y.3d 641 (2004)

    Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b, providing performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits to EMTs, does not entitle applicants to review by a Special Medical Committee pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 605(e), as § 607-b only incorporates § 605(c) by reference.

    Summary

    This case concerns whether Tier IV EMTs, who apply for performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b, are entitled to a review of their application by a Special Medical Committee under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605(e). The New York Court of Appeals held that they are not. The petitioners, EMTs injured on the job, had their applications initially denied by the NYCERS Medical Board but were later approved by a Special Medical Committee. NYCERS subsequently discontinued their benefits, arguing that § 605(e) review was not available to EMTs applying under § 607-b. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ decisions, finding no basis in the statute’s language or legislative history to extend § 605(e) review to § 607-b applicants.

    Facts

    The petitioners were Tier IV EMTs employed by the City of New York.

    Each petitioner sustained on-the-job injuries, rendering them unable to perform their duties.

    They applied for three-quarter disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b.

    The NYCERS Medical Board initially denied their applications.

    The petitioners appealed to a Special Medical Committee, which reversed the Medical Board’s determination and approved the benefits.

    NYCERS subsequently discontinued the benefits, claiming that § 605(e) review does not apply to § 607-b applications.

    Procedural History

    Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the termination of their benefits.

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding ambiguity in § 607-b and holding that the medical review procedures in § 605(e) should apply.

    The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that § 607-b is not a “stand-alone” statute.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Tier IV EMTs applying for performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b are entitled to review by a Special Medical Committee pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 605(e)?

    Holding

    No, because the plain language of § 607-b only incorporates § 605(c) by reference, and the legislative history does not support extending § 605(e) review to § 607-b applicants.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court emphasized that § 607-b expressly references only § 605(c), which addresses the procedures for the NYCERS Medical Board’s initial disability retirement allowance determinations. The Legislature did not amend § 607-b to incorporate § 605(e) after enacting it. The Court noted that § 605(e) explicitly applies to those seeking benefits “pursuant to this section”—i.e., § 605—and not the enhanced benefits under § 607-b.

    The legislative history of § 605(e) indicates that it was intended to rectify “Tier inequity” by providing Tier III and IV members of NYCERS with the same medical review rights as Tier I and II members under § 605. According to the court, applying § 605(e) to EMTs under § 607-b would frustrate the legislative intent of § 607-b, which aimed to eliminate the disparity between EMTs and firefighters, as firefighters are not entitled to § 605(e) review.

    The Court reasoned that it was unlikely the Legislature would implicitly create a new disparity between EMTs and firefighters shortly after specifically acting to eliminate one. The court stated, “If EMTs are now afforded the additional level of review provided for in section 605 (e), the legislative intent of section 607-b would be frustrated and a new disparity introduced between EMTs and firefighters, as firefighters are not entitled to section 605 (e) review.”

    The Court focused on the specific language chosen by the legislature and declined to expand the scope of a statute beyond its explicit terms. The decision underscores the importance of statutory interpretation, particularly when dealing with complex retirement benefit schemes.