Court Opinion

ID: 9942012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 14:07:32.070127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:35.602027
License: Public Domain

Pastrana v New York City Fire Pension Fund
               2024 NY Slip Op 30468(U)
                    February 13, 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. 46                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                                   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         02/08/2024
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -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

                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 28, 29, 30, 31,
            32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       ARTICLE 78                       .

                      The petition to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner accident disability

            retirement (“ADR”) is denied.

            Background

                      Petitioner worked for the FDNY since 2006; he was promoted to the position of

            firefighter in 2013. As part of his responsibility as a firefighter, he received a COVID-19

            vaccine. However, petitioner details that he suffered an adverse reaction to both doses of the

            vaccine (an allergic reaction as well as heart issues) and that he was subsequently deemed unfit

            for duty, which ended his career as a firefighter. Petitioner applied for ADR as a result and

            details his ongoing health issues.

             160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL                                  Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160515/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                   Apparently, there were two Medical Board determinations in this proceeding. Both

            recommended that petitioner receive ordinary disability retirement (“ODR”). The Board of

            Trustees split their vote, which resulted in petitioner receiving only ODR instead of ADR.

                   Petitioner argues that the record clearly shows he should have received ADR. He stresses

            the numerous physical complications he now suffers and that his current condition is the result of

            him following orders. Petitioner contends that his injuries are permanent and that they resulted

            from risks that were not part of the ordinary job responsibilities of a firefighter. He blames the

            FDNY for making him receive a second dose of the vaccine.

                   Petitioner argues that the first medical board evaluation considered cardiovascular

            disability while the second evaluated respiratory disability. He insists that these Medical Board

            opinions did not articulate a sufficient basis for granting him only ODR and was not supported

            by credible evidence. Petitioner also argues that he is entitled to a statutory presumption known

            as the Heart Bill, a presumption that a disabling heart condition was sustained as a result of

            petitioner’s employment as a firefighter. He observes that respondents never rebutted this

            presumption.

                   In opposition, respondents claim that petitioner is not entitled to ADR because there was

            no service-related accident that caused him to be permanently disabled. They contend that

            receiving the vaccine was not an accident and stress that petitioner waited until the very last day

            to get vaccinated. Respondents emphasize that petitioner’s application for ADR did not cite the

            Heart Bill and so petitioner cannot raise that issue in this proceeding.

             160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL                Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160515/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            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’

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

            omitted]).

                   The central part of this case concerns the Medical Board’s determination dated May 4,

            2023. In that opinion, the Medical Board observed that:

             160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL                 Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 160515/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                      “Based upon our review of all medical records and interview of the member, it is
                     the unanimous opinion of the Subchapter 2 Medical Board that FF O'Brian Pastrana
                     is not permanently disabled due to allergic reaction to COVID vaccine or COVID
                     Disease. The Subchapter 2 Medical Board acknowledges the member's symptoms,
                     but notes that there is insufficient objective medical evidence of permanent
                     disability related to his allergic reaction to COVID-vaccine and COVID disease.
                     The Subchapter 2 Medical Board notes that the member had normal pulmonary
                     function testing and imaging studies of his lungs. Therefore, the Subchapter 2
                     Medical Board recommends that FF O'Brian Pastrana's Fire Commissioner's
                     Application for allergic reaction to COVID-vaccine and COVID disease be denied”
                     (NYSCEF Doc. No. 40 at 5).

                     The Court recognizes that petitioner strongly disagrees with this conclusion and asserts,

            repeatedly, that he was perfectly fine prior to receiving the vaccines although the Court observes

            that a May 2, 2023 Medical Board opinion noted that petitioner admitted he had prediabetes and

            “would intermittently have episodes of high blood pressure when seen medically and, again, was

            taking no medication” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 38 at 3). But the fervor with which petitioner

            disagrees with the Medical Board’s findings is not a basis for this Court to set that conclusion

            aside.

                     The Court observes that the transcript of the meeting before respondents indicates that

            many of the members sympathized with petitioner (NYSCEF Doc. No. 41). Counsel for

            petitioner notably made an impassioned plea for petitioner and emphasized the point that her

            client can now no longer serve as a firefighter simply because he followed the directive to get the

            vaccine. Unfortunately, the Medical Board simply disagreed with that determination.

                     The fact is that this Court must “defer [ ] to the Medical Board’s expertise” (Lamar v

            Nigro, 2024 NY Slip Op 00136 [1st Dept 2024] [denying a request for ADR]). “[I]t is the sole

            province of the Medical Board and the Trustees to resolve conflicts in evidence” (id.). This Court

            cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Medical Board. The Court also rejects

            petitioner’s efforts to rely upon the Heart Bill as respondents correctly observed that petitioner’s

             160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL                Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160515/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            application before the Medical Board did not rely on it. Petitioner cannot make arguments here

            that were not considered before respondents.

                    Although it appears the Board of Trustees seriously considered granting petitioner ADR,

            petitioner unfortunately did not prevail in the final vote. That this Court may have significant

            admiration for petitioner’s many years of service for the FDNY and compassion for his current

            physical ailments is not a sufficient basis upon which this Court can substitute its own judgment

            for that of respondents.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

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

            disbursements.

                   2/13/2024                                                            $SIG$
                      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

             160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL                Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]