Opinion
A-3242-20
06-09-2023
HANEEFAH ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent-Respondent.
Janis A. Eisl argued the cause for appellant (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein &Blader, PC, attorneys; Samuel M. Gaylord, on the brief). Juliana C. DeAngelis, Staff Attorney, argued the cause for respondent (Robert S. Garrison, Jr., Director of Legal Affairs, attorney; Juliana C. DeAngelis, on the brief).
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Argued April 19, 2023
On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System, Department of the Treasury, PFRS No. xx7897.
Janis A. Eisl argued the cause for appellant (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein &Blader, PC, attorneys; Samuel M. Gaylord, on the brief).
Juliana C. DeAngelis, Staff Attorney, argued the cause for respondent (Robert S. Garrison, Jr., Director of Legal Affairs, attorney; Juliana C. DeAngelis, on the brief).
Before Judges Currier and Enright.
PER CURIAM
While working as a senior corrections police officer, appellant was injured while closing a gate. Her application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied by the Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement System (Board). After appeal and transfer to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found appellant failed to demonstrate "the incident me[t] all of the criteria necessary to qualify . . . as an undesigned or unexpected event and therefore [appellant] does not qualify for [accidental disability retirement benefits]." The Board adopted the ALJ's decision. We affirm.
The parties stipulated appellant "was involved in a work-related injury where she was closing the sally port and sustained injuries." The issue for determination before the ALJ was whether the incident was an undesigned and unexpected event as delineated under Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police &Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189 (2007).
During the OAL hearing, appellant testified she was working at the sally port at the correctional facility-an area where vehicles and staff enter the facility either by driving or walking through gates. She was ordered to manually unlock and open a gate for a truck to pass through. She had no trouble unlocking the gate and sliding it open. However, as she was closing the gate, it "stopped abruptly" and got stuck, causing her to injure her shoulder, neck, and back. Appellant conceded she was aware of the procedure for manually opening and closing the gates and she was following the procedure at the time of these events.
After considering the factual record and applying the Richardson principles, the ALJ stated
[Appellant] had opened the gate without incident and did not know of any problems with the gate. Her injury resulted from pulling the gate attempting to close it. That activity may not be the normal activity of the correction officer's job duties, but [appellant] stated she did have the procedures for opening and closing the sally port gates.... [Appellant's] proofs do not meet the requirements of undesigned and unexpected.
The Board subsequently adopted the ALJ's decision affirming the Board's denial of appellant's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.
"Our review of [an] administrative agency action is limited." Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police &Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011). "We recognize that agencies have 'expertise and superior knowledge . . . in their specialized fields.'" Hemsey v. Bd. of Trs., Police &Firemen's Ret. Sys., 198 N.J. 215, 223 (2009) (alteration in original) (quoting In re License Issued to Zahl, 186 N.J. 341, 353 (2006)). Therefore, we will not "substitute [our] own judgment for the agency's, even though [we] might have reached a different result." In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007)).
For those reasons, "an appellate court ordinarily should not disturb an administrative agency's determinations or findings unless there is a clear showing that (1) the agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence" in the record as a whole. In re Virtua-W. Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008). "The burden of demonstrating that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rests upon the person challenging the administrative action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J.Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div. 2006).
The factual "findings of an ALJ 'are considered binding on appeal, when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence.'" Oceanside Charter Sch. v. N.J. State Dep't of Educ., 418 N.J.Super. 1, 9 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999)). The review of an agency interpretation of law is de novo. Russo, 206 N.J. at 27.
Appellant contends the Board misinterpreted the Richardson standard and erred in denying her accidental retirement disability benefit application. We disagree.
A member of the Public Employees' Retirement System is entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:15A-43 if the member "is permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of a traumatic event occurring during and as a result of the performance of [their] regular or assigned duties." Our Supreme Court has stated that to receive accidental disability benefits, a claimant must prove:
1. [they are] permanently and totally disabled;
2. as a direct result of a traumatic event that is:
a. identifiable as to time and place,
b. undesigned and unexpected, and
c. caused by a circumstance external to the member (not the result of pre-existing disease that is aggravated or accelerated by the work);
3. that the traumatic event occurred during and as a result of the member's regular or assigned duties;
4. that the disability was not the result of the member's willful negligence; and
5. that the member is mentally or physically incapacitated from performing [their] usual or any other duty.
[Mount v. Bd. of Trs., Police and Firemen's Ret. Sys., 233 N.J. 402, 421 (2018) (quoting Richardson, 192 N.J. at 212-13).]
As stated, the only issue is whether appellant's injury was caused by a traumatic event that was undesigned and unexpected. The Richardson Court found the "undesigned and unexpected" prong requires either "an unintended external event" or "an unanticipated consequence" of an intended event that "is extraordinary or unusual in common experience." 192 N.J. at 201 (quoting Russo v. Teachers' Pension &Annuity Fund, 62 N.J. 142, 154 (1973)). The Court stated an "[i]njury by ordinary work effort," when "the employee was doing [their] usual work in the usual way" does not qualify. Ibid. (quoting Russo, 62 N.J. at 154). In short, "work effort itself . . . cannot be the traumatic event." Id. at 211.
Appellant was injured while she was performing a required job duty in compliance with the procedures governing the manual opening and closing of the sally port gates. She has not demonstrated there was an undesigned or unexpected traumatic event as required and defined under Richardson.
We are satisfied the Board's adoption of the ALJ's decision denying appellant's application for accidental retirement disability benefits was based on the substantial credible evidence in the record and a correct interpretation of the controlling statute and principles of law.
Affirmed.