New York Assembly Bill A11089

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/24/26
• Refer: 4/24/26

Caption

Relates to the disability retirement for safety and security officers

Summary

A11089 amends the New York retirement and social security law to expand performance-of-duty disability retirement protections for certain state employees working in institutional safety roles. Specifically, it adds qualifying members under section 89-t to the existing protections for security hospital treatment assistants, allowing them to receive a performance-of-duty disability retirement allowance if they become physically or mentally incapacitated as a natural and proximate result of an injury sustained while performing their duties in an Office of Mental Health institution or from an act by a confined or committed person. The bill also creates presumptions for certain occupational diseases. If a covered member contracts HIV, tuberculosis, or hepatitis under the specified exposure circumstances, the bill presumes the disease was contracted in the line of duty and that the member is disabled from performing duties, unless rebutted by competent evidence. It further extends the heart-disease presumption to qualifying members covered by the section, so that a heart condition causing disability or death is presumed duty-related if the member passed an entry physical that did not show heart disease or impairment. The bill’s practical effect is to broaden eligibility for duty-related disability retirement benefits within the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System for safety and security officers working in mental health institutions. It would require the retirement system and the State to recognize additional presumptions of duty-related injury and disease, and it would increase retirement benefit costs. The fiscal note estimates an immediate past service cost of about $5.55 million and an annual increase in state contributions of about $1.1 million in the first year, with future costs averaging about 1.6% of salary annually. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is protective and supportive of frontline institutional safety workers, emphasizing occupational hazards and the need for stronger retirement protections. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct opposition is documented here. The main policy tension implied by the bill is fiscal: expanding presumptive disability benefits increases state pension liabilities and employer contributions, which may be weighed against the goal of providing enhanced coverage for employees exposed to violence and disease in mental health facilities.

Impact

The bill would amend section 607-a of the retirement and social security law to expand performance-of-duty disability retirement coverage to additional safety and security personnel, including qualifying members under section 89-t. It would also broaden statutory presumptions for certain communicable diseases and heart disease, making it easier for covered employees to establish that a disability or death is job-related. These changes would affect the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, the State as employer, and the covered workforce in Office of Mental Health institutions.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally favorable toward public employees in high-risk institutional settings, with its purpose centered on ensuring disability retirement protection for workers exposed to assaults, bodily fluids, and other occupational hazards. The fiscal note suggests the proposal is expected to impose additional pension costs, but no committee transcript or vote record is provided showing active opposition or support. Based on the text alone, the policy tone is sympathetic to affected workers and framed as a benefits expansion for safety personnel.

Contention

The principal point of contention is likely cost versus coverage. Supporters would see the bill as a needed correction for employees who face violence and disease exposure in mental health facilities, while fiscal stakeholders may object to the added state contribution and past service costs estimated in the fiscal note. Another possible issue is the expansion of statutory presumptions, which can make disability claims easier to prove and may be viewed by critics as broadening liability for the retirement system.