June 2004 - The Court determined that the NYPD Pension Fund had acted improperly and arbitrarily, by denying an officer who had a major heart attack one year after retirement a line-of-duty disability pension under the Heart Bill, where the officer had displayed signs of a heart condition at the time of her Service Retirement (20yrs) and whose disability pension application included a Heart Bill claim, but who was initially denied by the Pension Fund Medical Board upon first review, but whose application was still active at the time of the heart attack. The Court remanded the case unconvinced by the Pension Fund’s attempts to claim the heart condition was not job related to the officer’s 20 years of police service and had developed only in the one year after the officer’s retirement.

July 2004 - The Court found the decision of the FDNY Pension Fund, which was based in part on its “impartial expert” Dr. Delavagas, to deny a Fire Lieutenant with a debilitating line-of-duty related ankle condition, to be arbitrary and capricious, and remanded the matter.

August 2004 - The Court remanded the application of an NYPD officer who the Pension Fund had given an Ordinary Disability pension and denied an Accident Disability pension, for a disabling knee condition which was caused by his stepping into a pothole while on duty. The Court found the Fund had not properly considered the issue of an “accident” versus an “incident,” for pension purposes.

September 2004 - The Court found that the FDNY Pension Fund had acted improperly in awarding a non line-of-duty disability pension and denying an accident disability pension to a Fire Marshall with disabling back and neck conditions, who had injured his back and neck in a serious line-of-duty auto accident. The Court remanded the matter and ordered the Fund to utilize a new “outside consultant” other than Dr. Raynor on remand.

October 2004 - The Court determined the FDNY Pension Fund had acted arbitrarily and improperly in denying an applicant with a long history of line of duty spinal injuries, a line of duty disability pension, and instead, awarding him a non line-of-duty disability pension for a spinal disability which the Pension Fund Medical Board determined was not related to his numerous on the job back and neck injuries, based in part on their “expert” Dr. Raynor’s finding. The matter was remanded for a more appropriate review.

January 2005 - The Court found the FDNY Pension Fund had not properly considered the evidence, particularly, the Board of Trustees failed to failed to present new evidence to the Medical Board, and instead finalized their denial, in case where petitioner was awarded a non line of duty pension based on a claim that he was disabled by a polyneuropathy which affected his neck and upper extremities, while being denied a line of duty disability pension for radiculopathy related to a line of duty injury in which he injured his neck and after which he never returned to full duty.

May 2005 - The Court remanded the denied disability pension application of a Firefighter with serious line-of-duty accident related spinal problems, based on a finding the Pension Fund had ignored evidence in evaluating the application.

July 2005 - The Court found that the FDNY Pension Fund had acted improperly by ignoring evidence related to the applicant’s recurring hernia condition, in an application which involved multiple line-of-duty accidents and several disabling conditions, and remanded the denied accident disability pension application for further review.

August 2005 - The Court remanded the disability pension application of a Firefighter with 9/11 lung problems, for further review, finding the Pension Fund’s denial to be arbitrary, capricious and improper.

October 2005 - The Court found that the FDNY Pension Fund had acted improperly and arbitrarily in denying a Firefighter, who had suffered disabling burns to his legs, a disability pension. The Court found that the Fund had ignored credible evidence establishing the applicant to be disabled for full fire duty, and had relied on “experts” without an expertise in burns, and remanded the matter for a more appropriate review.

October 2005 - The Court found the FDNY Pension Fund had ignored evidence and complaints and conditions of an FDNY Fire Chief injured in a fall at Ground Zero, and ordered his Accident Disability pension application to be reconsidered.

October 2005 - The Court determined the FDNY Pension Fund had failed to review certain records in denying an applicant an accident disability retirement pension for a spinal condition, and remanded the matter.

November 2005 - The Court remanded an NYPD Heart Bill case in which it determined that the Pension Fund had ignored evidence in denying the applicant a line-of-duty disability pension.

December 2005 - The Court found that the NYPD Pension Fund had improperly considered the psychological disability pension application of an officer involved in numerous line-of-duty shootings, including a 1996 sniper incident where he was shot in his bullet proof vest while making a phone call from a public phone, and remanded the matter for further consideration. The Pension Fund had awarded a non line-of-duty psychological disability pension for a depressive disorder which they found was unrelated to any of the shooting incidents.

February 2006 - The Court remanded the denied disability pension application of an officer with line of duty related hearing problems, whose hearing did not meet the NYPD applicant requirement standards, but who the Pension Fund nevertheless found fit for full duty.

March 2006 - The Court found that the FDNY Pension Fund had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying an applicant’s accident disability pension application for a line-of-duty spinal condition, and order that the case be remanded and that a new outside “impartial” consultant other than Dr. Raynor be utilized.

April 2006 - The Court remanded a matter for the second time where it finds the FDNY Pension Fund had acted improperly in denying a Fire Lieutenant’s Accident Disability Application for a line-of-duty ankle condition.

May 2005 - The Court found that the FDNY Pension Fund had improperly denied a Firefighter’s disability pension application for a lung condition. The applicant was a tri-athlete before 9/11, and was shortly thereafter assigned to permanent light duty by the FDNY’s own doctors for his lung problems. The Court remanded the matter for a more legally sufficient review.

June 2006 - The Court remanded the application of a female officer who was awarded Ordinary Disability Retirement and denied Accident Disability Retirement for a psychological disability, where the officer had discovered her partner’s body minutes after she shot herself in the head in the women’s locker room. The Pension Fund found the suicide discovery to have not contributed to the psychological disability.

June 2006 The Court determined the NYPD Pension Fund had acted improperly by awarding a deceased Sergeant with 19.5 years on the job, who had suffered a fatal heart attack while on vacation, a non line-of-duty pension, and denied the Sergeant’s family the benefits of a line-of-duty pension under the Heart Bill. The matter was remanded for a more appropriate review.

June 2006 - The Court remanded the denied application of a Firefighter with serious line-of-duty accident related back and neck problems, based on a finding the Pension Fund had ignored evidence in evaluating the case. The Court also instructed that a new “independent expert” other than Dr. Raynor be utilized on remand.

June 2006 - The Court found the NYPD Pension Fund had acted arbitrarily and unfairly in refusing to process the Heart Bill disability pension application of an officer who had underwent heart testing two weeks before his Service Retirement (20yrs), but did not get the results which revealed a life threatening heart condition that required immediate surgery, until 13 days after his retirement date. The Court ordered that the Pension Fund accept and process the application which the officer filed 22 days post-retirement as soon as he left the hospital.

September 2006 - The Court remanded the denied Accident disability pension application of an NYPD officer with 9/11 lung problems, based on a finding that it appeared the Pension Fund Medical Board did not possess the expertise to render a legally maintainable decision on the officer’s condition.

October 2006 - The Court found the NYPD Pension Fund’s denial of an NYPD officer’s application for a disability pension for a 9/11 related psychological condition, to be arbitrary and improper, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

October 2006 - The Court determined that the NYPD Pension Fund had acted improperly in awarding a non line-of-duty disability pension and denying a line-of-duty disability pension, to an officer who was kicked in the shoulder while on full duty by an emotionally disturbed person and thereafter went to four shoulder specialists and underwent major shoulder surgery, and was left with a disability of the shoulder. The Court found the Pension Fund’s decision that the line-of-duty accident was not the cause of the disability, to be arbitrary and capricious.

October 2006 - The Court found that the NYPD Pension Fund had acted improperly in awarding a non line-of-duty psychological disability pension and denying a line-of-duty disability pension under the ‘9/11 Law’, to a female officer who had been assigned to Ground Zero on September 12th through the 14th of 2001, and left the World Trade Center site and immediately turned in her guns and ID, and was then found wandering the streets.

October 2006 - The Court remanded a denied ¾’s application of an NYPD officer with multiple line of duty spinal injuries and extensive treatments and lengthy treatment history, finding the Pension Fund’s review to have been improper.

December 2006 - The Court remanded a pension application to the NYPD Pension Fund where it found the Fund ignored evidence that a female officer was injured during her tour, and not before her tour, and thus is likely entitled to a line-of-duty disability pension (3/4’s) as opposed to the non line-of-duty (1/2) pension which was awarded.

February 2007 - The Court determined that the NYPD Pension Fund had acted unfairly and improperly by denying a female officer a psychological line of duty disability pension for a condition related to her having to kill a deranged man who was attacking her through the window of a car on the highway. The Fund had approved her for a non line-of-duty pension for a back injury suffered in an off-duty car accident that occurred after the shooting. The Court found that the Fund had ignored evidence that the officer was placed on psychotropic medication immediately after the shooting which facilitated the NYPD taking her guns away, and that although she seemingly only went off the medication briefly, apparently to have her guns returned so that she might feel protected, she was thereafter returned to the medication which she had continued on and was on at the time of the auto accident. Moreover, the officer was in continuing psychological counseling following the accident. The matter was remanded for a more fair and “honest” review.

February 2007 - The Court remanded the denied disability pension application of an NYPD Detective with a serious line-of-duty knee condition which prevented his performance of true “full duty,” but who had spent the final four years of his career technically on “full duty”, but at an “inside” assignment working for the Terrorism task force; a position he was appointed to and kept at, for his computer skill and other specialties.

February 2007 - The Court determined that the NYPD Pension Fund had not rebutted the presumption of the Heart Bill and had improperly denied an officer with a 10 year history of hypertension and Tachycardia, a line of duty disability pension.

March 2007 - The Court found the NYPD Pension Fund failed to consider whether an officer’s line of duty injury either caused his disabling vertigo, or exacerbated a pre-existing condition, and remanded the matter in which the Fund had denied the officer Accident Disability Retirement and Awarded Ordinary Disability Retirement.

April 2007 - The Court found the FDNY Pension Fund had acted improperly in finding the applicant’s spinal condition to have no relation to his multiple line-of-duty spinal injuries, and vacated the Ordinary Disability Pension award, which was based in part on the findings of the Fund’s “impartial expert” Dr. Raynor, for further consideration of whether the applicant is entitled to a line-of-duty disability pension.

May 2007 - The Appellate Department found that the FDNY Pension Fund had no basis to award a non-line-of duty pension rather than a line-of-duty pension to a fire fighter with a shoulder disability clearly caused by a line of duty accident, and ordered the Fund to award a ¾ pension.

June 2007 - The Court found that the FDNY Pension Fund had acted improperly in denying both the applicant’s 9/11 lung disability pension application as well as his accident disability shoulder application which involved a review by the Fund’s “impartial” consultant Dr. Delavagas, where the applicant had been placed on permanent light duty as a result of both conditions. The Court remanded both application for a more legally sufficient review.

June 2007 - The Court found that the New York Employees' Retirement System had acted arbitrarily by finding that a Correction Officer on the blood thinner Coumadin as a result of a job related heart condition, was “fit for full duty”, and remanded the denied disability pension application for further review.

July 2007 - The Court remanded a denied Accident Disability Pension application to the NYPD Pension Fund which had denied his application despite the fact his line of duty hand condition prevented him from qualifying to carry a firearm.

July 2007 - The Court found the NYPD Pension Fund had acted improperly in failing to allow a female psychological disability applicant’s personal psychological doctor to appear at her Medical Board hearing, and remanded the matter, in which the Fund had award a non line-of-duty pensions and denied a line-of duty pension.

August 2007 - The Court found the FDNY Pension Fund had performed a legally deficient review of petitioner's 9/11 Lung Disability pension application as well as his orthopedic back application, which they utilized Dr. Raynor in evaluating, and remanded the case for a more legally sufficient consideration.

August 2007 - The Court remanded the application of an NYPD officer who was retired on an Ordinary psychological disability pension and denied an Accident disability pension, based on the finding that the NYPD Pension Fund had failed to consider the ‘World Trade Center Law’ and presumption it creates, in evaluating the applicant’s claim of 9/11 related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

September 2007 - The Court found the FDNY Pension Fund had finalized an ADR application despite the Board of Trustees never actually coming to a final determination on the application, and remanded the matter so that a judgement could be reached.

October 2007 - The Court determined the NYPD Pension Fund had acted improperly by taking away a 9/11 psychological disability pension from an officer who suffered a psychological injury on September 11, 2001, from witnessing the events of that day. He had to be taken from the sight for shortness of breath as a result of psychological trauma. The Pension Fund Medical Board found him to be psychologically unfit for full duty as a result of a psychological disability which was caused by his 9/11 experience. However, months after the applicant had been awarded a disability pension and was collecting the same, the Board of Trustees without any type of vote or discussion, took the pension away and replaced it with a lesser non line-of-duty pension, claiming the officer did not meet the criteria of the ‘9/11 Law’ because he did not have 40 hours at the site. It was argued that petitioner was protected under the laws intent, and the matter was remanded.

November 2007 - The Court remanded the application of a Firefighter who was denied a disability pension for back and neck conditions which required spinal surgery just months after the denial was finalized, and ordered the FDNY Pension Fund to reconsider the application and the evidence of the applicant’s spinal disability.

January, 2008 - The Court found the NYPD Pension Fund had acted improperly by failing to adequately address the back injuries of the disabled officer who they retired on a non-line of duty disability pension. The Court determined the Fund had not demonstrated its determination met the credible evidence standard, as the Board of Trustees relied on an insufficient explanation by the Medical Board. It was ordered that the case be remanded and a comprehensive determination be made.

July, 2008 - The Court remanded the case of a retired police officer who claimed to have suffered hearing loss as a result of working at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The Police Pension Fund had retired the petitioner on an Ordinary disability pension, finding that his hearing loss had nothing to do with the hearing trauma sustained while on site as both Towers collapsed. The Fund also argued that hearing was not a condition covered under the World Trade Center Law presumption. The Court found no support for this argument and also found the Police Pension Fund Medical Board had not explained the reasoning behind this denial and remanded the case for further proceedings.

March 2009 – The Court remanded for the second time, the denied psychological Accident disability pension application of an NYPD Officer, where it was determined that the Pension Fund continued to ignore the issue of whether the Officer had become psychologically incapable of police work following her justified killing of a deranged man on the highway while traveling to work, who was assaulting her through the window of her vehicle and reaching for her gun.  The Court found that the Pension Fund failed to fairly consider the officer’s psychological complaints and medical records in denying her application, because a short time after the shooting, she unfortunately was involved in an off duty car accident and was retired on a less lucrative non line of duty pension for orthopedic injuries sustained in the crash. 

June 2009 - The Court found the NYPD Pension Fund Board of Trustees had not adequately explained their legal basis for refusing to allow a retired Detective who suffered a heart attack 13 months after taking his service retirement, to amend his still pending disability application to include his disabling heart condition which his doctors indicated was unquestionably caused by his 20 years in the Police Department; including his time in the Emergency Services Unit, and particularly his near 1,000 hours of World Trade Center rescue, recovery and clean-up efforts, as well as his time spent at the Hurricane Katrina disaster site. The Detective had argued that his application ought to have been amended under the Heart Bill and/or the World Trade Center Disability Law, based on the purpose and intent of each law. It was the Court’s ruling that the Board of Trustees had not adequately discussed or refuted the Detective’s attorney’s arguments in refusing the amendment to the Pension application to add the heart condition.

June 2009 - The Court found the NYPD Pension Fund had acted improperly in a harshly worded Decision remanding the application of a Detective found to be psychologically disabled by his World Trade Center efforts by the Police Pension Fund Medical Board, but retired on a non line of duty Ordinary Disability Retirement pension for the fact that the NYPD and the Police Pension Fund, claimed to be unable to locate their own employment records showing the Commands and locations to which the Detective was assigned during the World Trade Center disaster and clean-up; and thus refused to grant him a line of duty World Trade Center Disability retirement pension. The Court stated that the Board of Trustees had breached its duties by inexplicably searching for the Detective’s work records in locations to which he was not assigned, despite evidence presented by the Detective and letters written by his attorney, specifying his work locations, and the Court also criticized the Board of Trustees for continually, for 9 straight months, refusing to discuss the case on the record so that the errors could be discovered. The Court ordered the Board of Trustees to re-evaluate the case and for the re-evaluation to include all records submitted by the Detective and his attorney indicating to where the Detective was assigned and working on and after September 11, 2001.

November 2009 - The Court found the denial by NYCERS of a line of duty disability pension, and award of a non line of duty pension, to a petitioner who worked as an EMT for 19 years, without missing a day for a foot problem, and who less than 6 months after being forced by the FDNY to wear non-flexible, steel comprised boots, which did not fit and which he complained of from the first day he had to wear them, who suffered cracked bones in his foot and ankle and tears of his ligaments, based on a finding that it was petitioner’s diabetes and not the boots which had caused his injuries, to be wholly improper. In the case, the Court seemingly based its decision on the fact that the boots had caused hundreds of other FDNY-EMS members foot injuries, and petitioner’s diabetes remained controlled and at the same level from 1988 until the late 1990s, and then again from the late 1990’s until the time of his injury. The Court remanded the case so that evidence injuries to other FDNY members could be considered, as well the report of FDNY doctors that said petitioner’s condition was not diabetes related and all other relevant materials, and for an articulation of NYCERS reasoning for their decision the boots did not, at the very least, exacerbate or aggravate any pre-existing diabetic foot problem petitioner might have had.

November 2009 - The Supreme Court, Kings County, finds the denial by NYCERS of a line of duty disability pension, and award of a non line of duty pension, to an petitioner who worked as an EMT for 19 years, without missing a day for a foot problem, and who less than 6 months after being forced by the FDNY to wear non-flexible, steel comprised boots, which did not fit and which he complained of from the first day he had to wear them, who suffered cracked bones in his foot and ankle and tears of his ligaments, based on a finding that it was petitioner’s diabetes and not the boots which had caused his injuries, to be wholly improper. In the case, the Court seemingly based its decision on the fact that the boots had caused hundreds of other FDNY-EMS members foot injuries, and petitioner’s diabetes remained controlled and at the same level from 1988 until the late 1990s, and then again from the late 1990’s until the time of his injury. The Court remanded the case so that evidence injuries to other FDNY members could be considered, as well the report of FDNY doctors that said petitioner’s condition was not diabetes related and all other relevant materials, and for an articulation of NYCERS reasoning for their decision the boots did not, at the very least, exacerbate or aggravate any pre-existing diabetic foot problem petitioner might have had.

May 2010 – The Supreme Court, New York County, determined, in remanding a ‘Heart Bill’ matter, that the Police Pension Fund had ignored the evidence of petitioner’s cardiologist and “cherry picked” from the evidence presented, in denying petitioner a line of duty disability pension under the Heart Bill. The Court found that the Pension Fund had not rebutted the presumption of the Heart Bill and had not disproven the connection between petitioner’s long standing history of hypertension and his heart disease. The Court noted that the Medical Board’s findings were conclusory, that the Medical Board contradicted itself, and seemed to ignore key evidence including the petitioner’s bouts of uncontrolled hypertension despite his taking tremendously high doses of high blood pressure medicine, and the extreme stress incurred in the final years of his career based on the operations in which he was involved. The Court sent the matter back to the Police Pension Fund to present the petitioner with “an appropriate application” of the Heart Bill.

May 2010– (Note that based on the nature of petitioner’s job duties, this case was made to be confidential.) It was the finding of the Court that the Pension System had acted arbitrarily and improperly under the controlling laws based on the facts of the case, where the petitioner was found to be disabled, but it was determined the disability had absolutely no connection to the line of duty. The Court ordered a reconsideration of the case which was to include an evaluation in keeping with the detailed nature of the Court’s finding, which presented an in depth discussion of the applicable pension laws, and focused on the fact that the purpose and intent of such laws, is to protect those individuals whose occupations place them in harm’s way, to protect the general public.

June 2010 - It was the finding of the New York Supreme Court, that the NYPD Pension Fund had acted arbitrarily and improperly under the controlling laws, in awarding the petitioner an Ordinary (1/2) as opposed to an Accidental (3/4) disability pension, based on a determination that her psychological disability was the result of an “incident” and not an “accident”, under the disability pension law definition of an accident: “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, out of the ordinary and injurious in impact”; and it was ordered that the petitioner be granted an Accidental Disability Retirement pension and retroactive benefits. The petitioner was a police officer who had worked at an “inside” administrative job full time for 6 years prior, as opposed to being out in ‘the field’ performing what is commonly thought of as ‘true’ ‘police work’, and had just returned from being out of work for 6 weeks following a major life altering surgery, when she was forced to shoot and kill a deranged individual who attacked her through the passenger window of the car she was being driven home from work in; and who bled to death on top of her and whose dead body had to be lifted off of her. It was found by the Court, that it was totally unexpected when the individual charged the car in the middle of the traffic packed highway and attacked petitioner, and tried to take her gun. And that based on the petitioner’s job assignment and recent medical leave, it was totally out of the ordinary for her to have to take the police action of shooting an individual at that time. The Court thus ordered the pension upgrade and retroactive benefits.

July 2010 - The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court, New York County, which had upheld a disability pension denial in the case of a former NYPD police officer who had presented extensive evidence of severe line of duty related spinal injuries. In reversing the lower Court, and remanding the matter to the Police Pension Fund, the First Department Judges agreed with the petitioner-appellants’ arguments, and determined that the Pension Fund’s Medical Board had failed to consider evidence, including the Officer’s surgeons’ reports, and diagnostic test results, and that the Board failed to explain and justify its denial, particularly in light of its own noted observations that the Officer had limitations in his range of motion and physical abilities. The Appellate Court further found that petitioner-appellant had demonstrated that instead of putting forth a legally sufficient explanation of its denial, the Medical Board simply referred back to previous ‘minutes’ in which it had concluded no disability, without discussing new probative evidence which was presented for its review and evaluation. The Appellate Court based its decision on the Officer’s arguments, that under the applicable laws, fairness dictates that all evidence in a disability pension matter be considered by the Medical Board and the Board of Trustees, and that the Medical Board must clearly state its reasons for a denial; and that neither of which had occurred; and thus the decisions of the Pension Fund and lower Court were legally deficient.