A New York appellate court recently ruled against Kevin Hernandez, a city worker, in his quest for accidental disability retirement benefits. The decision, made on August 19, 2026, affects Hernandez and potentially other city employees seeking similar benefits after workplace injuries.

The court's ruling came after Hernandez filed a petition to challenge a previous decision made by the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS). The court found that the circumstances surrounding Hernandez's injuries did not meet the criteria for accidental disability retirement benefits, which are typically reserved for injuries that are sudden and unexpected.

Background

Kevin Hernandez, a supervisor for the New York City Department of Sanitation, was injured on January 30, 2018, while performing his job duties. He slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk while investigating a snow and ice condition. Later, on March 13, 2018, he sustained another injury while getting up from a chair at a garage.

In January 2020, Hernandez applied for both ordinary disability retirement and accidental disability retirement benefits. The Medical Board of NYCERS evaluated his case and determined that while he was indeed disabled, the incidents leading to his injuries did not qualify as accidents under the law. The Medical Board recommended that Hernandez be denied the accidental disability retirement benefits while granting him ordinary disability retirement benefits.

On April 17, 2023, the Board of Trustees of NYCERS adopted the Medical Board's recommendation, leading Hernandez to file a proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to challenge the decision. The Supreme Court of Kings County initially ruled in favor of Hernandez, annulling the NYCERS decision and sending the case back for further proceedings.

The Ruling

However, the Appellate Division reversed this ruling, stating that the Board of Trustees' decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The court emphasized that Hernandez had the burden to prove that his disability was causally connected to an accident that occurred in the line of duty.

The court noted, "A fall . . . as a result of one's own misstep, without more, is not so out-of-the-ordinary or unexpected as to constitute an accidental injury as a matter of law."

The judges involved in the ruling were Betsy Barros, Lillian Wan, James P. McCormack, and Phillip Hom. They concluded that Hernandez's injuries were sustained while performing routine duties and were therefore not considered accidents under the law.

The judges further stated that the determination made by the Board of Trustees had a rational basis, given the inconsistencies in Hernandez's statements regarding his injuries. The court ruled that the evidence did not support a finding that his falls were the result of anything other than his own missteps.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for city workers who may seek accidental disability retirement benefits in the future. The court's decision clarifies that not every injury sustained while on the job qualifies for such benefits. To receive accidental disability retirement, workers must demonstrate that their injuries were caused by unexpected incidents rather than routine job-related activities.

The ruling may deter future claims that do not meet the strict criteria for accidental injuries. It reinforces the idea that workers must provide clear evidence that their injuries are not merely the result of ordinary job risks. This case may set a precedent for similar cases in New York, affecting how disability claims are evaluated by NYCERS and potentially other public employee retirement systems.

What's Next

Hernandez's case cannot be appealed further as the appellate court's decision is final. There are no related cases pending at this time. However, the ruling serves as a reminder for city employees to carefully consider the circumstances of their injuries when applying for disability benefits.