Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New York opinions name it 3 courts 2006–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Maldonado v. Kellygreen2 sentences2013The evidence showed that petitioner developed disabling asthma, respiratory airway dysfunction, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the wake of his WTC exposure, all of which are defined as WTC “[qualifying physical condition[s].” He also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and/or depression — “[qualifying psychological condition[s].” Once a petitioner establishes that he worked the requisite number of hours at the site, the “World Trade Center presumption” places the burden on the respondents to show that the petitioner’s qualifying injury was not incurred in the l 2013The evidence showed that petitioner developed disabling asthma, respiratory airway dysfunction, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the wake of his WTC exposure, all of which are defined as WTC “[qualifying physical condition[s].” He also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and/or depression — “[qualifying psychological condition[s].” Once a petitioner establishes that he worked the requisite number of hours at the site, the “World Trade Center presumption” places the burden on the respondents to show that the petitioner’s qualifying injury was not incurred in the l | 4 | 4 |
Bitchatchi v. Board of Trustees of New York City Police Department Pension Fundgreen2 sentences2021II , 20 NY3d at 283-284 , 284 n 4; Matter of Tobin v Steisel , 64 NY2d at 259-260; Matter of Scannella v New York State Comptroller , 119 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2014]), we cannot agree that the Retirement System set forth affirmative, competent evidence sufficient to rebut the World Trade Center presumption. 2021II , 20 NY3d at 283-284 , 284 n 4; Matter of Tobin v Steisel , 64 NY2d at 259-260; Matter of Scannella v New York State Comptroller , 119 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2014]), we cannot agree that the Retirement System set forth affirmative, competent evidence sufficient to rebut the World Trade Center presumption. | 1 | 2 |
Meyer v. Board of Trusteesgreen2 sentences2008City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139 [1997]). 2008City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139 [1997]). | 1 | 2 |
Tobin v. Steiselgreen2 sentences2021II , 20 NY3d at 283-284 , 284 n 4; Matter of Tobin v Steisel , 64 NY2d at 259-260; Matter of Scannella v New York State Comptroller , 119 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2014]), we cannot agree that the Retirement System set forth affirmative, competent evidence sufficient to rebut the World Trade Center presumption. 2021II , 20 NY3d at 283-284 , 284 n 4; Matter of Tobin v Steisel , 64 NY2d at 259-260; Matter of Scannella v New York State Comptroller , 119 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2014]), we cannot agree that the Retirement System set forth affirmative, competent evidence sufficient to rebut the World Trade Center presumption. | 1 | 1 |
Scannella v. New York State Comptrollergreen2 sentences2021II , 20 NY3d at 283-284 , 284 n 4; Matter of Tobin v Steisel , 64 NY2d at 259-260; Matter of Scannella v New York State Comptroller , 119 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2014]), we cannot agree that the Retirement System set forth affirmative, competent evidence sufficient to rebut the World Trade Center presumption. 2021II , 20 NY3d at 283-284 , 284 n 4; Matter of Tobin v Steisel , 64 NY2d at 259-260; Matter of Scannella v New York State Comptroller , 119 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2014]), we cannot agree that the Retirement System set forth affirmative, competent evidence sufficient to rebut the World Trade Center presumption. | 1 | 1 |
Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Systemgreen2 sentences2008Credible evidence rebuts the World Trade Center presumption (Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252.1 [1] [a]), assuming it applies, and supports the Medical Board’s determination that petitioner’s disability is not traumatic in origin (see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]). 2008Credible evidence rebuts the World Trade Center presumption (Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252.1 [1] [a]), assuming it applies, and supports the Medical Board’s determination that petitioner’s disability is not traumatic in origin (see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
Travers v. Kellygreen2 sentences2006Additionally, the parties cite to cases dealing with the so-called “Heart Bill,” which creates a similar presumption that a previously undetected heart condition is causally related to an accidental injury sustained in the line of duty and which also has identically worded rebuttal language as the World Trade Center presumption (see, General Municipal Law § 207-k; see also, Matter of Travers v Kelly, 12 Misc 3d 887 [Sup Ct, NY County 2006, Stallman, J.]; Matter of Wendling v Kelly, Sup Ct, NY County, Nov. 4, 2005, Feinman, J., Index No. 100187/04). 2006Additionally, the parties cite to cases dealing with the so-called “Heart Bill,” which creates a similar presumption that a previously undetected heart condition is causally related to an accidental injury sustained in the line of duty and which also has identically worded rebuttal language as the World Trade Center presumption (see, General Municipal Law § 207-k; see also, Matter of Travers v Kelly, 12 Misc 3d 887 [Sup Ct, NY County 2006, Stallman, J.]; Matter of Wendling v Kelly, Sup Ct, NY County, Nov. 4, 2005, Feinman, J., Index No. 100187/04). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MATTER OF MALDONADO v. Kelly
neutral
2 sentences2012Once a petitioner establishes that he worked the requisite number of hours at the site, the “World Trade Center presumption” puts the burden on the police department to show that the petitioner’s qualifying injury was not incurred in the line of duty (see Matter of Maldonado v Kelly, 86 AD3d 516, 519 [2011], lv granted 18 NY3d 808 [2012]). 2012Once a petitioner establishes that he worked the requisite number of hours at the site, the “World Trade Center presumption” puts the burden on the police department to show that the petitioner’s qualifying injury was not incurred in the line of duty (see Matter of Maldonado v Kelly, 86 AD3d 516, 519 [2011], lv granted 18 NY3d 808 [2012]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York
neutral
2 sentences2012We granted petitioner leave to appeal ( 18 NY3d 808 [2012]). m. 2012We granted petitioner leave to appeal ( 18 NY3d 808 [2012]). m. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kelly v. Kelly
neutral
2 sentences2011The existence of “credible evidence” supporting the Medical Board’s decision is a sufficient basis for a reviewing court to determine that the Board of Trustees correctly found that the Medical Board rebutted the World Trade Center presumption (see Matter of Claudio v Kelly, 84 AD3d 667 [2011]; Matter of Kelly v Kelly, 82 AD3d 544 [2011]). 2011The existence of “credible evidence” supporting the Medical Board’s decision is a sufficient basis for a reviewing court to determine that the Board of Trustees correctly found that the Medical Board rebutted the World Trade Center presumption (see Matter of Claudio v Kelly, 84 AD3d 667 [2011]; Matter of Kelly v Kelly, 82 AD3d 544 [2011]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Claudio v. Kelly
neutral
2 sentences2011The existence of “credible evidence” supporting the Medical Board’s decision is a sufficient basis for a reviewing court to determine that the Board of Trustees correctly found that the Medical Board rebutted the World Trade Center presumption (see Matter of Claudio v Kelly, 84 AD3d 667 [2011]; Matter of Kelly v Kelly, 82 AD3d 544 [2011]). 2011The existence of “credible evidence” supporting the Medical Board’s decision is a sufficient basis for a reviewing court to determine that the Board of Trustees correctly found that the Medical Board rebutted the World Trade Center presumption (see Matter of Claudio v Kelly, 84 AD3d 667 [2011]; Matter of Kelly v Kelly, 82 AD3d 544 [2011]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mulet v. Kelly
neutral
2 sentences2008Credible evidence rebuts the World Trade Center presumption (Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252.1 [1] [a]), assuming it applies (see Matter of Mulet v Kelly, 49 AD3d 336 [2008]), and supports the Medicad Board’s determination that petitioner’s disability was not the natural and proximate result of a line-of-duty accident (see Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. 2008Credible evidence rebuts the World Trade Center presumption (Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252.1 [1] [a]), assuming it applies (see Matter of Mulet v Kelly, 49 AD3d 336 [2008]), and supports the Medicad Board’s determination that petitioner’s disability was not the natural and proximate result of a line-of-duty accident (see Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Goldman v. McGuire
green
2 sentences2006Interestingly, the Court of Appeals has held that the two standards are essentially the same: in order to rebut the presumption, there must be some credible medical evidence in the record on which to base the determination that the (presumed) accidental injury did not cause the disability (see, Matter of Goldman v McGuire, 64 NY2d 1041 [1985], affg 101 AD2d 768 [1st Dept 1984]; see also, Matter of Meyer, supra, 90 NY2d 139 ). 2006Interestingly, the Court of Appeals has held that the two standards are essentially the same: in order to rebut the presumption, there must be some credible medical evidence in the record on which to base the determination that the (presumed) accidental injury did not cause the disability (see, Matter of Goldman v McGuire, 64 NY2d 1041 [1985], affg 101 AD2d 768 [1st Dept 1984]; see also, Matter of Meyer, supra, 90 NY2d 139 ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Cusick v. Kerik
green
2 sentences2006City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139 [1997]; Matter of Cusick v Kerik, 305 AD2d 247 [1st Dept 2003]; Matter of Rodriguez v Board of Trustees of N.Y. 2006City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139 [1997]; Matter of Cusick v Kerik, 305 AD2d 247 [1st Dept 2003]; Matter of Rodriguez v Board of Trustees of N.Y. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
MATTER OF GOLDMAN v. McGuire
green
2 sentences2006Interestingly, the Court of Appeals has held that the two standards are essentially the same: in order to rebut the presumption, there must be some credible medical evidence in the record on which to base the determination that the (presumed) accidental injury did not cause the disability (see, Matter of Goldman v McGuire, 64 NY2d 1041 [1985], affg 101 AD2d 768 [1st Dept 1984]; see also, Matter of Meyer, supra, 90 NY2d 139 ). 2006Interestingly, the Court of Appeals has held that the two standards are essentially the same: in order to rebut the presumption, there must be some credible medical evidence in the record on which to base the determination that the (presumed) accidental injury did not cause the disability (see, Matter of Goldman v McGuire, 64 NY2d 1041 [1985], affg 101 AD2d 768 [1st Dept 1984]; see also, Matter of Meyer, supra, 90 NY2d 139 ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |