In a significant ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied a former police officer's claim for accidental disability retirement benefits due to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The decision affects George Lorenz, who served as a police officer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and participated in search and rescue operations at the World Trade Center (WTC) site following the September 11 attacks. This ruling highlights the challenges faced by first responders seeking disability benefits for mental health conditions.
The case, titled Matter of Lorenz v. DiNapoli, was filed under docket number CV-25-1578 and decided on September 17, 2026. Lorenz applied for benefits in April 2021, citing PTSD as a result of his work at the WTC site between September 2001 and May 2002. The New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System initially denied his application, stating he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties as a police officer.
After the denial, Lorenz requested a hearing to review his application. During the hearing, the Retirement System acknowledged that his PTSD was related to his work at the WTC site. However, the key issue remained whether Lorenz was permanently disabled from performing his job duties due to his condition. The Hearing Officer ultimately upheld the denial, leading to the current court proceeding.
The court's ruling, delivered by Judge Mackey and concurred by Judges Garry, Aarons, Pritzker, and McShan, confirmed the Retirement System's decision. The court stated, "the sole issue before us is whether petitioner met his burden of proving that his medical condition rendered him permanently incapacitated from the performance of his job duties." The ruling emphasized that the Retirement System has the authority to weigh conflicting medical evidence and determine the credibility of expert opinions.
In this case, Lorenz's psychologist, Margaret Mortensen, diagnosed him with chronic PTSD and argued that he was unable to perform his duties as a police officer. She cited symptoms such as difficulty making decisions in stressful situations, panic attacks, and agoraphobia. However, Mortensen did not provide any treatment records or notes to support her claims.
On the other hand, William Cox, a psychiatrist who evaluated Lorenz on behalf of the Retirement System, also diagnosed him with chronic PTSD. However, Cox contended that a PTSD diagnosis does not automatically equate to a disability. He noted that Lorenz had continued to work for several years after his symptoms began, indicating that he was functioning in his role as a police officer. Cox maintained that there was no psychiatric reason preventing Lorenz from resuming his duties at the time he applied for benefits.
The court found that while there was evidence supporting Lorenz's claims, Cox's opinion provided substantial evidence to uphold the Retirement System's determination. The court concluded, "although there was medical evidence that could support a contrary conclusion, Cox's rational opinion based upon an examination of petitioner and a review of his medical records provides substantial evidence supporting respondent's determination that petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing that he was permanently incapacitated from his job duties due to his medical condition."
This ruling has significant implications for first responders seeking disability benefits for mental health issues. The court's decision underscores the importance of providing comprehensive medical documentation to support claims for benefits. It also highlights the challenges faced by individuals with PTSD, particularly those who may have continued working despite their symptoms.
Going forward, this ruling may affect other first responders who apply for similar benefits. It sets a precedent that emphasizes the need for clear evidence of permanent incapacity when seeking disability retirement benefits related to mental health conditions. The court's decision may influence how future cases are evaluated, particularly in terms of the weight given to expert opinions and the importance of medical records.
As for what's next, Lorenz could potentially appeal the court's decision to a higher court. However, details regarding any plans for an appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may serve as a reference point for similar claims in the future, as it highlights the complexities of proving permanent disability due to PTSD.