Sampson-Thornhill v Caban

2024 NY Slip Op 30806(U)

March 13, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 158804/2023

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.
158804/2023 SAMPSON-THORNHILL, RENEE vs. EDWARD CABAN, AS THE POLICE 

COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, EX OFFICIO, OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE II ET AL

Motion No. 001

Page 1 of 5

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 

37, 38

were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 .

The petition to annul a determination denying petitioner’s request for Accident Disability

Retirement (“ADR”) is denied. 

Background

Petitioner started working as a police officer in 2008. She contends that she passed all of 

her physical and psychological testing. Petitioner alleges that in 2012 she was injured in a lineof-duty assault and that her injuries from this incident have altered her health and wellbeing. She 

describes that while attempting to handcuff a suspect, he fought back and punched her many 

times. She also insists that the suspect’s girlfriend and mother attacked her as well. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 158804/2023

 MOTION DATE 03/12/2024

 MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

RENEE SAMPSON-THORNHILL,

 Petitioner, 

- v -

EDWARD CABAN, AS THE POLICE COMMISSIONER OF 

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EX OFFICIO, OF THE POLICE 

PENSION FUND, ARTICLE II, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE II, NEW 

YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF NEW 

YORK

 Respondent. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO. 158804/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

1 of 5 [* 1]
158804/2023 SAMPSON-THORNHILL, RENEE vs. EDWARD CABAN, AS THE POLICE 

COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, EX OFFICIO, OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE II ET AL

Motion No. 001

Page 2 of 5

Petitioner maintains that the main medical issue she currently faces concerns her bladder. 

She appeared before the Medical Board, which issued an initial report on November 9, 2021 

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 19). The Medical Board noted that petitioner saw a urologist in 2013 (as 

well as other doctors in 2012 and 2013) and petitioner complained about severe urinary 

frequency, among other ailments (id. at 4). It noted that:

“In summary, the Medical Board recognizes that the officer worked full duty until 

June 2019 following which she underwent first implantation and then removal of a 

stimulator device to manage urinary incontinence. Following these procedures, she 

was complaining of left lower extremity pain, numbness and weakness. The 

Medical Board observed significant weakness in the left upper and left lower 

extremity, which were not documented specifically by her practitioners. The 

Medical Board is aware that she recently underwent Botox injections to the bladder 

and some of the left lower extremity symptoms could be attributable to this 

procedure. The Medical Board also notes that her ability to ambulate did not appear 

consistent with the weakness demonstrated on her examination. The Medical Board 

notes that there are no abnormal imaging studies. Specifically, the Medical Board 

does not have the reported study of MRI. of the cervical spine performed this year 

for the multiple sclerosis specialists. Neither the Medical Board nor her own 

treating practitioners are able to specifically tie her disabling condition to the line 

of duty injury of November 23, 2012” (id. at 10). 

The Medical Board concluded that petitioner was permanently disabled due to “urinary 

incontinence” but that she was entitled only to Ordinary Disability Retirement (“ODR”). The 

Board of Trustees then considered petitioner’s application on July 13, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 

25). It remanded the ADR request back to the Medical Board (id.). 

In a report dated December 6, 2022, the Medical Board adhered to its original 

determination that petitioner was only entitled to receive ODR (NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 at 3). 

“The Medical Board notes the lack of contemporaneous records between the years 2013 and 

2019, as well as the officer's status for full duty during that period. Also, noted is the lack of 

definitive explanation for her urological problems within her voluminous record. The Medical 

INDEX NO. 158804/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

2 of 5 [* 2]
158804/2023 SAMPSON-THORNHILL, RENEE vs. EDWARD CABAN, AS THE POLICE 

COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, EX OFFICIO, OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE II ET AL

Motion No. 001

Page 3 of 5

Board continues to find an absence of evidence to ascribe causality for her urinary problems to 

the line-of-duty incident in 2012” (id.). 

The Board of Trustees evaluated this determination on July 20, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 

28). A board member noted that:

“The Medical Board denied due to lack of contemporaneous medical records 

between 2012 and 2019 as well as the member’s status for full duty during this 

period. There is no medically definitive explanation for the member’s urological 

problem within her record. They find an absence of evidence to ascribe causality to 

her urinary problems in the 2012 line of duty. The member –neither the Medical 

Board nor her own treating practitioners are able to specifically tie her condition to 

the line of duty [incident] in question. I also point out that there was—there were a 

number of assertions in the letter that don’t ring true. The first indication of 

incontinence is 13 months after the accident, and it is implied that it’s immediately 

thereafter which it was not. So with that we would deny the upgrade request” (id.). 

Petitioner insists that she is entitled to ADR and that she started to experience 

incontinence issues on the day of the incident. She claims she was first diagnosed with 

overactive neurogenic bladder/incontinence a mere five months after the accident. Petitioner

argues that despite being a police officer for 15 years without any history of untruthfulness, the 

Board of Trustees refused to accept her claims. 

Respondents contend that the medical evidence simply did not show a link between 

petitioner’s condition—urinary incontinence—and the 2012 incident. They point out that one of 

petitioner’s doctors insisted that her urinary issues were tied to the 2012 incident but observe that 

this doctor only saw petitioner for the first time in October 2014 and that he referred petitioner to 

a urologist. Respondents stress that petitioner’s urologist did not conclude that her symptoms 

stemmed from the incident in a letter dated January 22, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 36 at 

NYC0001378-79). 

In reply, petitioner insists that it is not a coincidence that petitioner “first los[t] her urine” 

in the 2012 incident and was diagnosed with urinary tract issues shortly thereafter. She insists

INDEX NO. 158804/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

3 of 5 [* 3]
158804/2023 SAMPSON-THORNHILL, RENEE vs. EDWARD CABAN, AS THE POLICE 

COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, EX OFFICIO, OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE II ET AL

Motion No. 001

Page 4 of 5

that the Court should ignore respondents’ attempt to focus on her doctors’ “professional restraint 

in not stating they can link her disabling incontinence issues to her [line-of-duty assault].” 

Petitioner claims that the Board of Trustees did not review her medical records. She insists that a 

fair and equitable consideration of the facts shows she is entitled to receive ADR. 

Discussion

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 

Board of Trustees votes to either grant or deny ADR benefits” (Stavropoulos v Bratton, 148 

AD3d 449, 450, 50 NYS3d 2 [1st Dept 2017]). 

“Ordinarily, a Medical Board’s disability determination will not be disturbed if the 

determination is based on substantial evidence. While the quantum of evidence that meets the 

‘substantial’ threshold cannot be reduced to a formula, in disability cases the phrase has been 

construed to require ‘some credible evidence” (Borenstein v New York City Employees’ 

INDEX NO. 158804/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

4 of 5 [* 4]
158804/2023 SAMPSON-THORNHILL, RENEE vs. EDWARD CABAN, AS THE POLICE 

COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, EX OFFICIO, OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE II ET AL

Motion No. 001

Page 5 of 5

Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-61, 650 NYS2d 614 [1996] [internal quotations and citations 

omitted]). 

The Court denies the petition. Respondents rationally concluded there were a number of 

factors that justified the denial of petitioner’s ADR request. They highlighted that there simply 

was not a persuasive causal link between the assault and her incontinence, and that petitioner 

seemingly worked at full duty status for over five years after the incident. It is not this Court’s 

role to examine petitioner’s medical records and reach its own independent conclusion about 

petitioner’s ADR application. “[I]t is the sole province of the Medical Board and the Trustees to 

resolve conflicts in evidence” and a Court must defer to “the Medical Board’s expertise” (Lamar 

v Nigro, 223 AD3d 470, 203 NYS3d 66 [1st Dept 2024] [reversing a trial court’s award of 

ADR]). 

And, here, there is no question that many of petitioner’s doctors, and specifically her 

urologist, declined to insist that her incontinence was directly caused by the 2012 incident. 

While petitioner characterizes this as professional restraint, it provides another reason why this 

Court is unable to find that respondents’ determination was arbitrary and capricious. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

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

disbursements upon presentation of proper papers therefor. 

3/13/2024 $SIG$

DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

INDEX NO. 158804/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

5 of 5

□ 

□ 

[* 5]