Court Opinion

ID: 9950818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:10:13.972542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:50.691420
License: Public Domain

Kim v Sewell
               2024 NY Slip Op 30760(U)
                     March 11, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 152035/2022
                  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. 152035/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                             PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X    INDEX NO.          152035/2022
                RORY KIM,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE        03/04/20241
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                KEECHANT SEWELL, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
                THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE
                II, DOROTHY KUNSTADT, M.D., LAWRENCE SCHARER,
                                                                                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
                M.D., LAWRENCE REDUTO, M.D., IN THEIR CAPACITY
                AS THE MEDICAL BOARD OF THE POLICE PENSION                                                 MOTION
                FUND, ARTICLE II

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
            14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      ARTICLE 78 - ADR                   .

                      The petition to for an order directing respondents to retire petitioner with accident

            disability retirement (“ADR”) is denied.

            Background

                      Petitioner started working for the NYPD in January 2004 and served until he was granted

            Ordinary Disability Retirement (“ODR”) in 2021. He emphasizes that when he underwent

            physical examinations prior to starting work for the NYPD, there was no indication of any heart-

            related ailments. Petitioner alleges that, unfortunately, on December 24, 2018 he suffered a

            1
              The docket indicates that this proceeding was scheduled for oral argument on various dates in 2022 although it is
            not clear whether or not oral argument actually occurred. Although this proceeding was only assigned the
            undersigned on March 4, 2024, the Court apologizes on behalf of the court system for the substantial delay in the
            resolution of this proceeding.
                152035/2022 KIM, RORY vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                                                      Page 1 of 4
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 152035/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            stroke. In the aftermath, he was subsequently treated by various physicians until he retired with

            ODR in November 2021.

                   Petitioner explains that on April 16, 2019 he applied for ADR under the Heart Bill, a

            statute that provides a presumption that heart-related issues (including a stroke) are caused by

            being in the line of duty. On July 19, 2019, “The Medical Board notes that the cause of the

            infarct is most likely embolus or thrombosis related to the left internal carotid artery aneurysm

            which has been treated. Underlying cause of the internal carotid artery abnormality is not clear. It

            is the opinion of the Article II Medical Board that it is unlikely to be due to arthrosclerosis

            obvious cause in the form of the aneurysm was present and arthrosclerosis was described as

            minimal” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4, ¶ 17). It granted only ODR for petitioner (id. ¶ 18).

                   The Board of Trustees then sent petitioner’s ADR application to the Medical Board for

            another review in 2020. The Medical Board determined that:

                    “In summary, the new evidence does not give any new insight as to the underlying
                   cause of the sergeant's stroke, which was the basis for the recommendation for
                   Ordinary Disability Retirement. The Medical Board finds that there is evidence on
                   radiologic studies of several abnormalities of his cerebral circulation including an
                   aneurysm of the supraclinoid portion of the left internal carotid artery, abnormal
                   cerebral circulation with what was called large vessel angiopathy as well as a
                   narrowing of the M 1 branch of the left middle cerebral artery. The previous
                   documentation did not reveal stress related pathology such as hypertension or
                   cardiovascular disease which could be attributed to his work as a police officer. He
                   has a number of pathological findings unrelated to the stress of his job” (NYSCEF
                   Doc. No. 5, ¶ 9).

                   Yet again, the Board of Trustees referred the instant application to the Medical Board for

            another evaluation in 2021. The Medical Board once again denied the request for ADR

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 6). It observed that “In summary, the sergeant is familiar with the condition

            called moyamoya disease which is a congenital genetically-caused condition and also the

            disorder with the carotid artery in the skull which becomes blocked or narrowed, reducing blood

             152035/2022 KIM, RORY vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                                       Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 152035/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            flow. . . . This may possibly be due to certain genetics and practices in those populations.

            Apparently neurologic experts now consider this as a direct cause of a stroke as to any

            contribution by hypertension; there is no evidence that he has had hypertension” (id. ¶ 10).

                      The Board of Trustees then voted on petitioner’s application. The result, a 6-6 tie, meant

            the denial of petitioner’s request for ADR. Petitioner insists that respondents’ denial of his

            application for ADR was arbitrary and capricious because respondents failed to adequately rebut

            the presumption provided by the Heart Bill. He claims that respondents conveniently ignored the

            clear evidence of hypertension as demonstrated by petitioner’s high blood pressure readings

            during his examinations. Petitioner questions respondents’ assertion that his stroke was unrelated

            to hypertension.

                      In opposition, respondents assert that they satisfied their burden to rebut the Heart Bill

            presumption on the ground that petitioner’s stroke was likely caused by a congenital disease

            called Moyamoya disease. Respondents insist that there was no medical evidence that attributed

            the stroke to petitioner’s police work or any other condition.

                      Petitioner did not submit a reply.

            Discussion

                      “The Heart Bill [] provides essentially that any impairment of health caused by diseases

            of the heart, resulting in total or partial disability or death of any fireman or policeman who

            successfully passed a physical examination upon entry into the service shall be presumptive

            evidence that it was incurred in the performance of duty unless the contrary be proved by

            competent evidence” (Goldman v McGuire, 101 AD2d 768, 769, 101 AD3d 768 [1st Dept

            1984]).

             152035/2022 KIM, RORY vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                                        Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                             3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 152035/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                    The Court observes that petitioner is absolutely entitled to the statutory presumption

            provided under the Heart Bill due to his stroke. The Court, therefore, must consider whether or

            not respondents met their burden to overcome this presumption. Here, the Court denies the

            petition as the Medical Board attributed petitioner’s stroke to a congenital condition and not

            related to his police work. “The statutory presumption of General Municipal Law § 207–k

            (Heart Bill) was overcome by credible medical evidence that petitioner's disabling heart

            condition is congenital and not related to occupational stress” (Pellicane v Kelly, 106 AD3d 558,

            558, 965 NYS2d 803 [1st Dept 2013]).

                    “It was the sole province of the Medical Board and the Board of Trustees, not the court,

            to resolve conflicts in the medical evidence” (Goodacre v Kelly, 96 AD3d 625, 626, 947 NYS2d

            463 [1st Dept 2012] [reversing a Supreme Court decision granting ADR to petitioner in Heart

            Bill case]). The fact is that the Medical Board concluded that petitioner’s condition was

            congenital and, unfortunately, that forecloses petitioner’s request for ADR. The law is clear: this

            Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Medical Board or resolve disputes

            between the Medical Board and petitioner’s doctor.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

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

            disbursements.

                    3/11/2024                                                           $SIG$
                      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

             152035/2022 KIM, RORY vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                                      Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]