Court Opinion

ID: 9952470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:09:16.330148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:41.173396
License: Public Domain

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.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 158804/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          158804/2023
             RENEE SAMPSON-THORNHILL,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         03/12/2024
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -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                                       DECISION + ORDER ON
             OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE II, NEW                                                 MOTION
             YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF NEW
             YORK

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

            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 line-

            of-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.

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

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 158804/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

                   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

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

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 158804/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

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

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158804/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

            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’

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

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158804/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

            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

             158804/2023 SAMPSON-THORNHILL, RENEE vs. EDWARD CABAN, AS THE POLICE                  Page 5 of 5
             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

                                                           5 of 5
[* 5]