- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Matter of Rathour v. Whinnery
- Docket
- 2024-08023
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03311
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
Raja Rathour, a corrections officer with the New York City Department of Correction, was injured during three separate incidents in 2012 and 2013. He applied for disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-c, which provides enhanced disability benefits for certain uniformed correction officers. The Medical Board of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System examined Rathour and recommended denial, finding that while he was disabled, his disability was due to the progression of degenerative changes and arthritis in his left knee and right shoulder — conditions not caused or aggravated by his work-related injuries.
The Board of Trustees adopted the Medical Board’s recommendation and denied the application. Rathour commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination, and the Supreme Court, Kings County denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Rathour appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the judgment denying the petition. The court applied the deferential standard of review for Board of Trustees disability determinations, holding that such decisions “will not be disturbed unless its factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence or its final determination and ruling is arbitrary and capricious.” In the disability retirement context, “substantial evidence” requires only “some credible evidence” supporting the determination.
The court found that the Medical Board’s determination — that the petitioner’s disability resulted from degenerative changes rather than the work-related injuries — was supported by credible evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. The court noted that the resolution of conflicting medical evidence was “within the province of the Medical Board,” deferring to the Medical Board’s expertise in evaluating the medical evidence and determining the cause of the disability.
Takeaways
This decision illustrates the high degree of deference accorded to the Medical Board and Board of Trustees in disability retirement determinations. The “some credible evidence” standard is a low threshold, and courts will not reweigh conflicting medical opinions or substitute their judgment for that of the Medical Board. For applicants, this means that the initial presentation before the Medical Board is critical — the appellate record will generally not provide an opportunity to relitigate medical causation.
The case also highlights the distinction between disability and work-related causation. An applicant may clearly be disabled, but if the Medical Board attributes the disability to degenerative conditions rather than work-related injuries, the enhanced benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-c may be denied. This distinction can have significant financial consequences for the applicant.
Why It Matters
For corrections officers and other uniformed employees seeking disability retirement benefits, this case reinforces the importance of presenting strong medical evidence of causation at the Medical Board level. Once the Board of Trustees adopts the Medical Board’s recommendation, judicial review is extremely deferential. Applicants should ensure that their treating physicians provide detailed opinions connecting the disability to specific work-related incidents, addressing and distinguishing any pre-existing or degenerative conditions that the Medical Board might cite as the true cause of disability.