Pastrana v. New York City Fire Pension Fund

Pastrana v New York City Fire Pension Fund 2024 NY Slip Op 31118(U) April 2, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 160515/2023 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

INDEX NO. 160515/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 160515/2023 OBRIAN PASTRANA, MOTION DATE N/A Petitioner, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 -v- NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION DECISION + ORDER ON FUND, CITY OF NEW YORK MOTION

Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, were read on this motion to/for REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION .

Petitioner’s motion to reargue is granted and, upon rearguement, the Court adheres to its

prior determination although for the reasons described below.

Background

In this proceeding concerning petitioner’s application for Accident Disability Retirement

(“ADR”) benefits, this Court previously denied the petition (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46).

Petitioner explains that this Court misapprehended the fact that petitioner was evaluated

twice by the Medical Board for two separate physical conditions. One evaluated him for his

respiratory function and the other for his cardiovascular function. He acknowledges that he did

not contest the Medical Board finding that found that his respiratory tract was fine but that he

does challenge the Medical Board finding regarding his cardiovascular function. That decision

granted him Ordinary Disability Retirement (“ODR”). Petitioner argues that the primary issue in

160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 002

INDEX NO. 160515/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

INDEX NO. 160515/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

INDEX NO. 160515/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

Unfortunately, he experienced incidental consequences from that expected vaccine. Of course,

the bad consequences he suffered led to him receiving ODR. But this Court is unable to find that

petitioner’s physical ailments were the result of an accident as defined under the relevant

caselaw. As noted above, an accident for purposes of awarding ADR arises where a firefighter

suffers injuries from a sudden event rather than from adverse consequences from a planned

event.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to reargue is granted and, upon reargument, this

Court adheres to its previous determination albeit on the different basis described above; and it is

further

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or

disbursements.

4/2/2024 $SIG$ DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART X OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 002

4 of 4 [* 4]

Footnotes

[1] of 4 [* 1] this proceeding is whether his permanent disability in the cardiovascular Medical Board evaluation is an accident for purposes of granting him ADR. The Court observes that respondents filed opposition but the Court did not consider it as it was not filed timely; the notice of motion set the return date for April 1, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. and respondent filed its opposition in the afternoon on April 1, 2024. Discussion As an initial matter, petitioner is correct that this Court misapprehended the fact that there were two separate Medical Board findings and apologizes for the need to make the motion to reargue. The Court will therefore address the key issue according to petitioner—whether his apparent adverse reaction to receiving the COVID-19 is an accident that entitles him to receive ADR. “In an article 78 proceeding, the issue is whether the action taken had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious” (Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043, 962 NYS2d

[587] [2013] [internal quotations and citation omitted]). “An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” (id.). “If the determination has a rational basis, it will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable” (id.). “Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231, 356 NYS2d 833 [1974]). “Applying for ADR involves a two step process. Initially, the pension fund’s Medical Board conducts a physical examination, interviews the applicant, and reviews the submitted evidence, before submitting a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. In the second step, the 160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002 2 of 4 [* 2] Board of Trustees votes to either grant or deny ADR benefits” (Stavropoulos v Bratton, 148 AD3d 449, 450, 50 NYS3d 2 [1st Dept 2017]). “ADR benefits are awardable only where the individual's disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident, i.e., a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” (Rivera v Bd. of Trustees of N.Y. Fire Dept., 220 AD3d 584, 585, 198 NYS3d 680 [1st Dept 2023]). “In the context of ADR benefits, the Court of Appeals has defined an accident as a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact, while 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” (Pastalove v Kelly, 120 AD3d 419, 420, 991 NYS2d 39 [1st Dept 2014]). Here, petitioner was found to be permanently disabled after being evaluated for cardiovascular functioning by the Medical Board, which awarded him ODR and the Board of Trustees agreed. The Court finds that petitioner’s disability was not the result of a service- related accident under the caselaw cited above. In this Court’s view, getting a vaccine is not an unexpected event. It is more akin to the case cited by respondents in their initial opposition, Rivera, where a firefighter was awarded only ODR when he suffered a leg injury after becoming dehydrated while training as a firefighter (Rivera, 220 AD3d at 584-85). The First Department found that such an injury was “incidental—not accidental” and that it arose out of his performance of “routine duties, not as a result of an unexpected event” (id. at 585). The appellate court also found that the dehydration was “a foreseeable risk” (id.). Here, getting the vaccine was not an unexpected event – it was not an accident. Petitioner knew he was getting the vaccine and was complying with the vaccine mandate. 160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002 3 of 4 [* 3]