The opinion
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]