Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that Tier IV emergency medical technicians seeking performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b are not entitled to independent medical review by a Special Medical Committee under § 605(e). The court relied on the plain language and legislative history of the statutes, concluding that § 607-b expressly incorporated only § 605(c) and that extending § 605(e) review would create an unintended disparity between EMTs and firefighters. The court reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Tier IV EMTs seeking performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b are entitled to independent medical review by a Special Medical Committee under § 605(e).
- Whether § 607-b's express incorporation of § 605(c) also incorporates the later-enacted medical-review procedure in § 605(e).
Holdings
- Tier IV EMTs applying for performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b are not entitled to review by a Special Medical Committee under § 605(e).
- The legislative history confirms that § 605(e) should not be extended to § 607-b applications because doing so would create a new disparity between EMTs and firefighters contrary to the purpose of § 607-b.
Key quotations
“We conclude that they are not.” (643)
“The plain language of Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b specifically references only section 605 (c).” (646)
“Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed.” (647)
Factual background
Petitioners were Tier IV emergency medical technicians who suffered job-related injuries and applied for three-quarter disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b. NYCERS's Medical Board denied their applications, but a Special Medical Committee, convened under § 605(e), reversed those determinations and approved the benefits. NYCERS subsequently informed petitioners that their benefits and health insurance coverage would be discontinued because § 605(e)'s medical-review procedure did not apply to § 607-b applications.
Procedural history
Petitioners, Tier IV EMTs, applied for performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-b. NYCERS's Medical Board denied the applications, but a Special Medical Committee reviewed and approved them under § 605(e). NYCERS later discontinued the benefits, prompting an article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court found § 607-b ambiguous and held that petitioners were entitled to additional medical review; the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the petition.
Remand instructions
None; the Court of Appeals directed that the petition be dismissed.