Motion for Writ in Stephen Cuppek v. Westchester County, Westchester County Department Of Public Safety, Terrance Raynor Acting Police Commisioner| Trellis.Law

On April 12, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Stephen Cuppek, and Terrance Raynor Acting Police Commisioner, Westchester County, Westchester County Department Of Public Safety, for Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 in the District Court of Westchester County.

Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
—---------------------------------------------------------------x

In the Matter of the Application of

STEPHEN CUPPEK Index No.:

Petitioner(s),

PETITION

- against -

Basis of Venue:

THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, THE WESTCHESTER Second Department

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Jurisdiction and Location

and TERRENCE RAYNOR, ACTING POLICE

COMMISSIONER of Respondent

Respondent(s).

—----------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITIONER by his Verified Petition, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Laws
and Rules, respectfully show to this Court and allege as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a special proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the New York State
Civil Practice Law and Rules for a judgement and order nullifying as unlawful, arbitrary,
capricious and ultra vires Respondents’ summary termination and/or summary diminution of

1 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

Petitioners’ benefits as guaranteed to him by reason of Section 207-c of the New York State
General Municipal Law.

JURISDICTION

2. Pursuant to England v. Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411

(1964), Petitioner hereby reserve for adjudication by jury trial in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, all federal Civil Rights claims which Petitioner has under
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983, against
The Westchester County Department of Public Safety, and the County of Westchester, New York.

THE FACTS

3. At all times herein, Petitioner POLICE OFFICER Stephen Cuppek (here in after
referred to as Petitioner) was and is employed by Respondent County and/or Respondent
Department of Public Safety for the last 18 ½ years.
4. At all times herein, Petitioner was employed as a Police Officer.

5. On October 8, 2015, Petitioner sustained injuries in the line of duty to his lower
back and right shoulder.
6. Petitioner was granted benefits pursuant to Section 207-c of the General
Municipal Law (hereinafter referred to as "GML") and has been in and out of work, mostly out of
work on 207-c since the injury to his lower back and right shoulder.
7. At all times herein, Respondent was and is a municipal entity duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York.
8. At all times herein, Respondent County was and is a municipal entity which
employs police officers in and for the County of Westchester.
9. At all times herein, Respondent Department of Public Safety was and is a
municipal entity which employs police officers in and for the County of Westchester.

2 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

10. As will be discussed below, Petitioner has a high likelihood of success on the
merits, as the Respondents have breached the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement
(hereinafter referred to as "CBA) and the law. (Annexed as Exhibit A) Petitioner is a disabled
individual being denied his livelihood and faces irreparable injury. It will also be shown below
that a balancing of the equities clearly favors injured Police Officers over the County employers
who are violating a collectively bargained contract, statutes and case law.
11. Petitioner seeks injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages incurred by the

Respondents' illegal and improper conduct to date.

12. Petitioner was out on 207-c for his lower back injury as per Independent Medical
Examiner Kanoff, (Exhibit B) who he saw at the Respondent’s request, from November 5, 2019,
through March 30, 2022. During this time, Petitioner returned to a light duty position for 6 hours
a day with 2 hours remaining as 207-c for his lower back injury.

13. Petitioner then went back out on 207-c on October 4, 2022, due to a second
surgery on his right shoulder work injury. While out on medical leave, he exacerbated his back
injury that he was still receiving 207-c for prior to the shoulder surgery.
14. Petitioner reported the exacerbation to Independent Medical Examiner
Krishnamurthy and his neurosurgeon Dr Kornel, who after reading a new MRI reported “MRI
shows much larger herniation L5S1 to left.”
15. Section 207-c of the GML provides in part that any Westchester County Police

Officer:

“who is injured in the performance of his duties or who is taken sick
as a result of the performance of his duties so as to necessitate
medical or other lawful remedial treatment shall be paid by the
municipality by which he is employed the full amount of his regular
salary or wages until his disability arising there from has ceased ...”

3 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

16. After an individual has been granted benefits pursuant to GML $207-c, the
Municipality may have the individual examined from time to time in order to determine, among
other things, whether the individual is able to return to work in some capacity. This is commonly
referred to as an independent medical examination (hereinafter referred to "IME").
17. The Courts have held that an individual granted benefits under GML 207c has a
proprietary interest in those benefits. Uniformed Firefighters of Cohoes Local 2562, IAFF. AFL-
CIO 4 v.City of cohoes, 94 N. Y.2d 686 (2000). Such benefits may not be taken without due
process. A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governs the relationship between the parties.
A copy of the relevant portion of the CBA (i.e., APPENDIX “C” General Municipal Law Section
207-c and Police Compensation Procedure) is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A".
18. GML $207-c is a remedial statute which is to be liberally construed in favor of the
injured employee, as the statute was designed to protect these employees. White v. County of
Cortlandt, 97 N.Y.2d 336 (2002). Therein, the Court of Appeals found that a police officer who is
disabled in the performance of, or as a result of his or her job duties, only needs to prove a direct
causal relationship between his or her job duties and a resulting illness or injury.
19. Under the CBA, if an individual is found fit to return to duty in some capacity at
an IME, he or she may challenge this opinion by electing to proceed either through a hearing
officer or the medical consulting service, at the option of the employee.
20. On March 3, 2023, Petitioner saw Independent Medical Examiner Krishnamurthy,
at the Respondents request, who reported he could return to a light duty position with restrictions
(Exhibit D).
21. On March 17, 2023, April 26, 2023 and July 19, 2023 the Petitioner elected to
challenge these opinions every time by requesting a due process hearing, as stated in CBA
paragraph 2c states:

‘Whether an employee who incurred an illness or injury, mental or
physical, as a result of the performance of her/his duties has sufficiently
recovered and is physically and mentally able for either temporary
limited duty assignments or full duty. For the purposes of the
Agreement, temporary limited duty shall be determined by either a
hearing officer or the medical consulting service at the option of the
employee.

4 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

22. On April 10, 2023, Megan Aversano of Triad group sent an email to the
Respondents (Exhibit F) stating in part “3/27/23 office note indicating PO Cuppek is capable of
RTW in regards to the right shoulder injury. Medical indicates he remains out on his lower back
injury. This medical also states the orthopedic surgeon did not clear officer Cuppek to return to
work, in fact it states this doctor continues to have him at 100% total disability (Exhibit G).
Respondents acknowledged this letter in Exhibit K.
23. On April 14, 2023, the Respondent directed Petitioner to return to work in a
restricted capacity on April 17, 2023(Exhibit H).
24. Petitioner challenged the return to work order, due to that fact although his
orthopedic surgeon said he feels he would be able to return to work at this time, it was also stated
unambiguously by the orthopedic surgeon that he was keeping him out as one hundred percent
disabled and further stated in the same report that he remains out of work due to his lower back
pain (Exhibit G).
25. On April 17, 2023 the Respondents unlawfully, arbitrarily, and capriciously
terminated Petitioner's benefits to which he was statutorily entitled to under 207-c and by doing
so, did not afford him the right to a due process hearing that he requested on March 16, 2023
(Exhibit E). Petitioner was told he would have his accrued time deducted in order to remain out
injured , while awaiting a determination from the pending due process hearing.
26. Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the
Petitioner is entitled to a due process hearing before the salary paid to him pursuant to GML is
terminated.
27. On May 1, 2023, and July 5, 2023, Petitioner submitted more notices from Dr.

Kornel stating the Petitioner remained at one hundred percent total disability (Exhibit I).

28. On July 7, 2023, at the request of the Respondent, Petitioner saw Independent
Medical Examiner Krishnamurthy again who reported that Petitioner had a slow guarded gait,
difficulty sitting and moderate back spasms. Range of motion of the lumbar spine was deferred as
well as the shoulder examination due to Petitioner being significantly uncomfortable and in pain.
Doctor Krishnamurthy did report the Petitioner could return to light duty with restrictions (Exhibit
J).

5 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

29. Petitioner again challenged this determination and again requested a due process
hearing, which was finally granted (Exhibit E).
30. At all times herein, the due process hearing was conducted by Westchester County
who appointed hearing officer Jeffrey M Bernbach on August 29, 2023 & October 3, 2023. A
decision was not rendered until December 7, 2023, with a job requested “return to work” date of
December 18, 2023, at which time Petitioner returned to a light duty position. It was unlawful for
the Respondents to ask and for the hearing officer to make his decision retroactive as he did.
31. Furthermore, it is well settled law that once a police officer is entitled to GML
207-c benefits, the termination of those benefits without a hearing is improper and the officer is
entitled to retroactive payment of those benefits from their termination until a proper hearing is
held and an appropriate determination is made. (See Crawford v. Sheriff’s Dept. Putnam County,
152 A.D. 2d 382[2nd Dept. 1989] App. Den 76 N.Y. 2d 704.
32. It is undisputed that a determination may be rendered either through due process
hearing or by medical consulting services that the individual is fit to return to work in some
capacity. It is also undisputed that this resolution of so-called "medical disputes" is binding.
33. However, until such a determination has been made, it is improper for

Respondents to revoke or interfere with Petitioners' benefits under GML §207-c. The CBA
provides:
11. (a) The Department of Public Safety agrees to retain all
employees subject to such medical disputes as described in paragraph
2(c) on full pay, line of duty status until such a date as a
decision is rendered by the Hearing Officer, or medical consultant........."

34. This determination may not have an impact upon an individual's status until it is

"rendered".

35. In practice, in violation of the parties' agreement, rather than retaining Petitioner
"on full pay, line of duty status until such date as a decision is rendered", Respondent withheld pay
and placed Petitioner on sick leave. Petitioner would only be paid if he had accrued time (e.g., sick
or vacation) which was taken by Respondent. If an individual has no accrued time on the books,

6 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

and/or after such time has been used up, the individual is not paid or has to request and be
approved for extended sick leave at 1/2 pay.
36. Petitioner’s case at bar is analogous to Matter of Westchester County Correction

Officers Benevolent Assn. Inc. v County of Westchester 2008 NY Slip Op 52719(U) [29 Misc 3d

1219(A)] decided on August 8, 2008. Herein in his decision, CBA between Petitioner and the
County provided that, in the event that a correction officer who is injured in the line of duty
disputes a finding by the medical examiner that he or she is able to return to work, the correction
officer may then submit the dispute to a hearing officer or independent medical consultant. The
Second Department specifically found that the CBA “clearly and unambiguously provides for the
retention of the officers under the circumstances at issue here ‘on full pay, line of duty status’
while their challenges were pending. It does not contemplate the reclassification of officers who
challenge the findings of medical examiners while those challenges are pending, nor does it
authorize the County to deduct accrued time the officers may have, if any, during that time, and
once accrued time is exhausted, to not pay the officers at all.” 71 A.D.3d 1040,896 N.Y.S.2d 474
(2nd Dep’t 2010). It should also be noted the
COBA CBA for this case is identical to the PBA’s CBA for the Petitioner.

37. Rather than continuing to provide benefits under GML §207-c and carry the
individual’s line of duty injured status, Respondent discontinued his benefits in a blatant violation
of the parties' agreement.
38. Respondent's scheme is also in violation of the law. The case at bar is analogous to
DeMasi v. Benefico, 34 A.D. 3d 472 (2d Dept. 2006), leave to appeal denied by 8N.Y.3d 812(May
3, 2007). Therein, the Petitioners were found to have line of duty injuries and received their full
salaries pursuant to GML, $207-c. Thereafter, they were ordered back to work. Some reported
and tried to work, while others failed to report to work. Respondents therein docked the
petitioners' salary. The Second Department reiterated that "payment of benefits pursuant to

___________________________________

“Whether an employee who incurred an illness or injury, mental or physical,
as a result of the performance of her/his duties has sufficiently recovered and

7 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

is physically and mentally able for either temporary limited duty
assignments or full duty. For the purposes of the agreement, temporary
limited duty shall be determined by either a hearing officer or the medical
consulting service at the option of the employee.”

GML §207-c constitutes a property right (citations omitted)" and found that the petitioners could
not work as a result of their original disabling injuries, so "those benefits cannot be suspended or
reduced in the absence of an evidentiary hearing". In DeMasi, the petitioner attempted to return to
work, but was unable to and provided supporting medical documentation. In the case at bar,
Petitioner had medical evidence contradicting the IME findings all along. As there is a medical
dispute, Petitioner’s "benefits cannot be suspended or reduced in the absence of an evidentiary
hearing”.

39. Respondent is attempting to circumvent the Court of Appeals decision in Park

v.Kapica, 8N.Y.3d 302 (March 27, 2007). Herein, the Court of Appeals found that procedural due
process protections must be in place before the termination of GML, $207-c benefits. Although
the court in Park found that the municipality had not violated the officer's due process rights, it
held that a municipality may not recoup disability payments made to an officer who is later found
to be able to work.
40. In the case at bar, rather than facing the Court of Appeals' prohibition on
recoupment of such payments, Respondent improperly withheld such payments as a way to avoid
Park. However, under the CBA and applicable statutes and case law, until a determination has
been made in the appropriate forum, Petitioners must continue to receive GML §207-c benefits.
41. Respondent improperly asked the due process hearing officer to retroactively
determine the propriety of the Petitioners' §GML 207-c status. However, they may not revoke or
interfere with such benefits, status and rights until after the determination has been made.
42. The Petitioner was granted GML §207-C status. Petitioner produced evidence that
he was unable to work as a result of the line of duty injury. However, he had his pay docked and
accrued time charged pending a determination by Hearing officer as to the propriety of the claim.

8 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

43. The determination of the hearing officer must be made in real time. It may impact
upon the present and future, but not the past. Respondent wishes to stop time so that the eventual
determination would impact that which should have already been completed.
44. Under the Respondent's interpretation of its rights, nothing would stop it from
waiting an infinite amount of time before a determination from the hearing officer, all the while
withholding an injured officer's benefits. In this case the Respondent waited over 5 months before
holding the requested due process hearing. Petitioner subsequently had to request a due process
hearing on three separate occasions during this 5 month span before finally being granted one.
45. Petitioner herein has been denied due process of law.

46. It should be noted that the relationship between the Respondent County and the

Westchester County Department of Public Safety Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (hereinafter
referred to as "PBA") is governed by terms identical to the CBA herein. However, since Park, the
Respondent County has acted in accordance with the procedures and requirements sought by
Petitioners herein. Without explanation, the County treats the Petitioner herein differently and in
violation of the clear wording of the parties' agreement and the law.
47. By reason of the foregoing, Respondents have failed to perform duties enjoined to
them under the law; Respondents have acted in excess of their jurisdiction; Respondents have
acted in violation of lawful procedures; and Respondents' actions have been arbitrary and
capricious and an abuse of discretion.
48. Petitioner is entitled to benefits up to the actual date of a determination finding
them no longer entitled to such benefits.
49. It is respectfully asserted that the Respondents should be barred from withholding,
revoking and/or interfering with benefits due pursuant to GML $207-c until after an individual
determination has been made in each case by a hearing officer or medical consulting service
finding an individual no longer entitled to such benefits.
50. No prior application for the relief sought herein has been made to this or any

other court.

9 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

51. The actions of the respondents are fatally defective as no final determination was made in
this matter. The law requires that the acting police commissioner, accept, or reject the findings of
the hearing officer. In this matter, the county was silent as to the recommendations of the hearing
officer instead a back to work order was , which was clearly defective as there is no signed
document from the police commissioner regarding the recommendations of the hearing officer.
Further, the respondents violated the law in in taking away the petitioners time before there was a
final determination made. The respondents are not allowed as a matter of law to stop the GML
207C benefits until after due process.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the within Verified Petition be granted in
its entirety and that the Court find that the Respondents failed to perform duties enjoined to them
under the law; that Respondents acted in excess of their jurisdiction; that Respondents acted in
violation of lawful procedures; that Respondents' actions be found to have been arbitrary and
capricious and an abuse of their discretion; Nullifying Respondents’ termination and/or
diminution of Petitioners’ section 207-c entitlements; that Respondent must pay to the Petitioner
all retroactive benefits up to the actual date of the determination finding such Petitioner no longer
entitled to such benefits; that a permanent injunction be issued barring the
Respondents from withholding, revoking, and/or interfering with benefits due pursuant to GML
207-c until after an individual determination has been made in each case by a hearing officer or
medical consulting service finding an individual no longer entitled to such benefits: together with
costs and disbursements of bringing this action and for such other, further and different relief as
this court deems just and proper.

ROTH LAW GROUP PLLC.

By: _____________________________________

Warren J. Roth, Esq.

Attorneys for Petitioner

10 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

Warren J. Roth

222 Bloomingdale Road, Suite 200

White Plains, New York 10605

Tel. (914) 874-5255

Fax (914) 304-4378

Warren.roth@rothlawgroupny.com

To: County of Westchester
148 Martine Ave.
White Plains, NY 10601

Westchester County Department of Public Safety.
1 Saw Mill River Parkway
Hawthorne, NY 10532

Acting Police Commissioner Terrance Raynor
1 Saw Mill River Parkway
Hawthorne, NY 10532

11 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

EXHIBIT A

12 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

"C"
APPENDIX

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW SECTION 207-c AND
POLICE COMPENSATION PROCEDURE

1. Employees who are injured in the performance of their duties (as defined pursuant to
§207-c of the General Municipal Law) shall be entitled to the provision of §207-c of the
Workers'
General Municipal Law and Compensation. Employees injured in the course of
Workers'
their employment (as defined by Compensation), but not in the performance of
their duties (as defined pursuant to §207-c of the General Municipal Law), shall be entitled
Workers'
only to the Compensation provision of this Agreement and state law. Those
employees receiving payment under these provisions shall be taxed as per the prior practice
"D" -
of the parties pursuant to Appendix of the January 1, 2001 December 31, 2002
Agreement.

(a) The County shall be responsible for the initial determination within ten (10)
calendar days as to whether an injury is compensable as defined by 207-c and/or
Workers'
Compensation Law. If the County fails to render such initial
determinations within ten (10) calendar days of notice of injury or illness, at the
employee's option, she/he may treat the failure as a constructive denial and utilize
the dispute resolution procedure in paragraph 6. When the notification of denial is

actually received by the employee, the procedure in paragraph 6 regarding election
of an option may also be invoked.

(b) In the event that a determination is adverse to the employee in relation to 207-c, the
employee shall be entitled to a due process hearing, an arbitration or utilization of
the independent medical consulting service, as defined below, at the employee's

option, to determine causal relationship. A hearing officer shall be appointed by
the Commissioner of Public Safety, and the employee will be entitled to be
represented by counsel, as well as cross-examination of the County's witnesses and
presentation of her/his own evidence.

(c) To resolve disputed cases of illnesses or injuries, physical or mental, resulting from
incidents which reportedly occurred while employees were performing their
official police officer duties, whether on or off duty, and as §207-c of the General
Municipal Law requires a due process hearing to resolve such disputes, and as the
parties wish to resolve these disputes in a prompt, fair and equitable manner, they
have agreed that these issues in dispute may be resolved through the use of an
employee option to utilize an independent medical consulting service, and/or
arbitration in lieu of above stated due process hearing.

1 Issues which shall be affected or determined by use of an independent medical consulting
service are as follows:

(a) Whether an illness or injury, physical or mental suffered by an employee was
incurred in the performance of her/his duty.

52
County of Westchesterand WestchesterCounty Departmentof Public Safety PBA/Final 2020-2023Agreement (5/18/23)

13 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

O Whether a current illness or injury, mental or physical is a recurrence or aggravation
of a prior illness or injury, mental or physical, which occurred in the performance
of her/ his duties.

(c) Whether an employee who incurred an illness or injury, mental or physical, as a
result of the performance of her/his duties has sufficiently recovered and is

physically and mentally able for either temporary limited duty assignments or full
duty. For the purposes of the Agreement, temporary limited duty shall be
determined by either a hearing officer or the medical consulting service at the
option of the employee.

3. The Department of Public Safety may dispute the validity of an employee's original illness
or injury allegedly incurred in the performance of her/his duties as set forth in paragraph

2(a) above, within ten (10) calendar days of the date the Department of Public Safety is
notified of said illness or injury. An employee claiming a job injury or job related illness
must notify his/her supervisor as soon as the employee is reasonably able to do so,
depending upon the circumstances and the nature of the injury or illness. Said employee

may elect to have the dispute resolved at a due process hearing, or by an independent
arbitrator selected by the parties at a hearing conducted pursuant to and consistent with
General Municipal Law §207-c. Either the hearing or arbitration mandatorily must occur
in twenty (20) business days. If the County asks for and is granted an adjournment, which
forces the hearing or arbitration to occur beyond the twenty (20) business days enumerated,
the employee shall be entitled to day-for-day full salary, from the twenty-first (21't)
business day, without the use of his/her accruals, until such time as the hearing or
arbitration occurs. If the County prevails at the hearing or the arbitration, it may force the
employee to substitute his/her accrual time day for day. The parties select the following as
a panel of independent arbitrators: Alan Viani, Marlene Gold and Arthur Riegel. In

addition, at the request of either the Department of Public Safety or the PBA, such employee

may be required to submit on a timely basis, within seven (7) calendar days to the
designated medical consulting service described hereinafter for a full medical evaluation;
the results of said medical evaluation shall be automatically submitted into evidence at the
arbitration proceeding or 207-c hearing established to resolve the causal connection
dispute. Said medical evaluation from the designated medical consulting service shall be
admitted into evidence at either the arbitration or the hearing pursuant to §207-c of the
General Municipal Law without the need for a witness from the medical consulting service.
The decision of the arbitrator designated to conduct the arbitration, or hearing officer
designated to conduct the 207-c hearing, which mandatorily must be issued within seven

(7) business days from the close of the hearing, shall be final and binding on the
Department of Public Safety and the employee with respect to the issue of causal
connection.

4. In cases where an employee alleges a reoccurrence or aggravation of a prior line of duty

injury as set forth in paragraph 2(b) above which is disputed by the Department of Public

Safety, said employee may elect to have the dispute resolved at a due process hearing
conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c, or by the medical consulting service
described herein. The decision of the hearing officer designated to conduct the 207-c

hearing, or the medical consulting service, shall be final and binding on the Department of
Public Safety and the employee.

53
County of Westchesterand Westchester County Department of Public Safety PBA/Final 2020-2023Agreement (5/18/23)

14 of 56
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 60399/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024

5. In disputed cases where the Department of Public Safety believes that an employee who
has been out of work as a result of a prior line of duty injury or illness, mental or physical,
is capable of physically and/or mentally performing either temporary limited duties or full

duty as set forth in paragraph 2(

Case Info

Judge

George E. Fufidio Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 12, 2024

Case Filing Date

April 12, 2024

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: Stephen Cuppek v. Westchester County, Westchester County Department Of Public Safety, Terrance Raynor Acting Police Commisioner

Preview

Case Info

Parties