New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

As reported by nj.com, a divided state employee benefits commission today backed a Republican proposal to rein in rising accidental disability claims but said lawmakers should remove a provision that unfairly punishes workers who are permanently injured on the job.

The GOP bill would reduce accidental disability pensions across all retirement systems to 40 percent of final salaries. Currently, police and firefighters on accidental disability, for example, receive two-thirds of their final salaries. The pension reduction would bring accidental disability benefits on par with those offered under the ordinary disability plan and take away a major financial incentive that is helping drive up applications, supporters argue.

But a majority of members on the Pension and Health Benefits Commission said merging the two benefits ignores an important distinction: accidental disability pensions are supposed to compensate workers permanently injured by traumatic events. Others argue there are still important distinctions between the two, such as accidental pensions are tax free and workers qualify for them from their first day on the job while it takes 10 years for workers to qualify for an ordinary pension.     

The proposed changes come on the heels of multiple media reports on how accidental disability pension applications and awards have spiked since two separate Supreme Court decisions in 2007 and 2008 broadened eligibility requirements. The rulings forced the state’s pension boards to consider slip and fall injuries as eligible, along with mental illness.

Overall, applications for accidental disability pensions were up 34 percent and awards were up 87 percent over the five years, according to the Treasury Department. The rate of approval also rose to 53 percent in 2011 from 38 percent in 2007. Payouts for accidental disability pensions also increased during this time by 33 percent from $98.8 million to $131.5 million compared to a 20 percent increase in ordinary pension payouts from $270.6 million to $323.1 million.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblymen Declan O’Scanlon and Gary Chiusano, would stiffen requirements by requiring applicants to also qualify for the more stringent federal workman’s compensation benefits. It would also penalize accidental disability pension beneficiaries if they get another job by reducing their pensions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 27, 2010, the Appellate Division decided Briane K. Washington v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, Docket No.: A-1857-08T1. In the case, Briane Washington (“Washington”), a former Essex County Correction Officer, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits as a result of an incident on February 21, 2005, when an inmate, who may have had HIV and/or AIDS, spit in his face on two separate occasions.

The Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (“Board”) found that Washington was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) as a result of the incident and awarded him ordinary disability retirement benefits because he was permanently and totally disabled. However, the Board denied Washington’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, concluding that he did not satisfy N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7, which requires an employee to be “permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of a traumatic event occurring during and as a result of the performance of his regular or assigned duties.”

Washington appealed the Board’s determination and was granted an administrative hearing. Based on the evidence presented, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined he was ineligible to receive an accidental disability pension. Specifically, the ALJ found there was no credible evidence that the inmate “was actually transmitting a life-threatening disease” and that Washington failed to satisfy the criteria set forth in Patterson for a disabling mental injury.

On appeal, Washington argued that he was entitled to an accidental disability pension because his disability resulted from “a traumatic event” on February 21, 2005. The Appellate Division rejected Washington’s contentions and affirmed the Board’s denial. Specifically, the Court found the Board correctly applied the law and its decision was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. As such, the Court concluded that the Board’s denial was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

This case illustrates the importance of a hiring an experienced attorney to assist in the filing of an application for accidental disability retirement benefits. As alluded to by the Court, the law regarding the grant of accidental disability benefits has been drastically altered over the past five (5) years. Consequently, it has become imperative for an applicant to hire an attorney who is familiar with these changes so as to ensure the application is properly considered and/or evaluated. Without doing so, one might fall short and never receive the benefits they are ultimately entitled to.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 27, 2010, the Appellate Division decided Gregory Russo v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, Docket No.: A-3706-08T2. In the case, Gregory Russo appealed from the March 10, 2009 final determination of the Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (“Board”) denying his application for accidental disability benefits.

On November 29, 2001, during his first year as an officer for the Montclair Police Department, Russo was dispatched to the scene of a residential fire with three other officers. They entered the burning building, determined that there were four residents inside and escorted two children and an adult to safety from the first floor. They could hear a fourth person calling for help from the second floor and tried to reach him, but could not safely proceed upstairs because of the fire’s rapid advance. As they were attempting to rescue the fourth occupant, local fire department personnel entered the building and ordered the police officers to leave. The man on the second floor died as a result of the fire.

After being evacuated from the residence, Russo witnessed the fire department removing the fourth occupant’s body through a window and was verbally berated by the man’s family for not doing enough to rescue him. The officers were taken to the local emergency room to be treated for smoke inhalation and were released the following morning. As a result of this traumatic event, Russo was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The initial decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who considered the matter, issued on November 6, 2008, found that Russo met the standard for receipt of accidental disability benefits. The ALJ found that Russo was eligible because he considered the reasonable person test to be “fully satisfied under the known facts of this case.” In contrast, the Board, although it adopted the ALJ’s factual findings, rejected the ALJ’s legal conclusions and denied Russo’s application. This appeal ensued.

The Appellate Division determined that it was constrained to agree with the Board in light of the substantial deference afforded to an administrative decision. According to the Court, none of the four officers who responded to the fire suffered any injuries beyond the smoke inhalation for which Russo was treated. Moreover, the Court noted that although the sight of the lifeless body of the fourth occupant of the burning building being removed was no doubt traumatic, police officers are trained to deal with injured and dead citizens under a multitude of horrific circumstances, including homicides, automobile accidents and natural disasters. Russo’s trauma was further compounded by being verbally berated by the surviving family members. However, the Court found that circumstance, in and of itself, does not constitute a traumatic event. Therefore, the Court agreed with the Board’s conclusion to deny Russo’s application for accidental disability retirement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 21, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Rosemarie Tatusko, Docket No.: A-2888-08T3. The case involved an appeal from a final decision of the Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System which denied Rosemarie Tatusko’s (“Appellant”) application for an accidental disability pension.

Appellant was employed by the Department of Corrections as a senior correctional officer at the Burlington County Jail. Her application for an accidental disability pension was based on an incident that occurred on Ocotber 22, 2005, when she assisted in saving a female inmate who had attempted to commit suicide. Appellant heard a “hacking gagging noise,” and when she scanned the prison cells to determine the source of this noise, she found the inmate hanging from a sheet in her cell. Appellant called another correctional officer to help her and the two of them were able to cut down the sheet with scissors and get the inmate to the floor. Appellant though at the moment that the inmate had died, but later found out that she had survived the attempted suicide.

At the time of the incident, Appellant had been a corrections officer for eight years. During that time, she had witnessed three other attempted suicides, two of which involved inmates cutting their wrists and the third of which also involved a hanging. Appellant did not experience any psychological problems after any of those three prior incidents. However, Appellant suffered a total and permanent psychological disability as a result of the October 22, 2005 incident. When Appellant was asked at the hearing on her application before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) how the October 22, 2005 incident differed from those prior incidents, she responded: “I don’t know. I can’t explain.”

The ALJ concluded that Appellant’s observations of the inmate’s attempted suicide and efforts to save her constituted a traumatic psychological event and, therefore, granted Appellant’s application. The Board rejected this recommended conclusion and determined that Appellant’s application should be denied because Appellant’s observation of the inmate’s attempted suicide and her subsequent efforts to save the inmate were not objectively capable of causing a reasonable corrections officer with training and experience similar to appellant to suffer a disabling mental injury. This appeal ensued.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 13, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Raymond Joseph Foster, III v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, Docket No.: A-5666-07T2. In the case, Raymond Joseph Foster, III, a member of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (“PFRS”), appealed from the final decision of the Board of Trustees (“Board”), upholding the May 5, 2008 initial decision of Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Jeff Masin, finding that Foster “has failed to meet his burden to prove that the total and permanent disability from which he suffers is the direct result of the injuries received in the traumatic event [Foster suffered on March 5, 2002].”

Foster started working as a Bordentown Township police officer in February 1998. On March 5, 2002 at 9:51 p.m., Foster was injured in a motor vehicle accident, while working as a police officer. The police report indicated that it was a one-vehicle accident. Foster was responding to the ACME supermarket. As he entered the parking lot, he turned right, but missed the entrance and struck a light pole to the left of the entrance. At the time, Foster was thirty-seven years old.

More than four years later, in September 2006, Foster stopped working. According to Foster, he could no longer tolerate the pain, which had become more constant and excruciating. It was undisputed that Foster was totally and permanently disabled and unable to perform his work duties. Thereafter, Foster applied to the Board for accidental disability retirement benefits. The Board denied the application on the grounds that Foster’s disability was not a direct result of the automobile accident, thus he did not qualify for accidental disability benefits.

Foster challenged that decision. The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. After hearings were conducted, ALJ Masin found that Foster’s application should be denied, concluding that Foster’s present disability was not the direct result of the accident. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Foster contended that the decision of ALJ Masin and the Board was not supported by the evidence. The Appellate Division disagreed. Based on its review of the record, the Court found that the Board’s findings were supported by the appropriate proofs and, therefore, its decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole. As such, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 23, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Barbara Cannella v. Board of Trustees, The Public Employees’ Retirement System, Docket No.: A-4389-07T2. In the case, Barbara Cannella appealed the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (“Board”) denying her application for accidental disability retirement benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:15A-43.

On December 26, 2002, Cannella, a State employee working for the Division of Youth and Family Services, arrived at the parking lot designated for State employees where she was assigned to park. The parking lot was located a block from the building where she worked. As she exited her vehicle, she slipped and fell on ice, sustaining injuries.

On April 19, 2006, the Board determined that due to the injuries incurred in the fall, Cannella was permanently and totally disabled from performing her regular and assigned duties, but did not qualify for accidental disability benefits within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 43:15A-43. In order to be entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits, the statute requires that the disabling injury be “as a direct result of a traumatic event occurring during and as a result of the performance of [her] regular or assigned duties.” The Board determined that she did not meet this criterion and denied her application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Cannella appealed and the case was sent to an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for an administrative hearing. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the ALJ found that because Cannella was a block away from her place of employment when she fell, she had not yet completed her commute and, as a result, the fall had not occurred “during and as a result of the performance of [her] regular or assigned duties.” As such, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the appeal. By letter dated May 27, 2008, the Board adopted the Initial Decision of the ALJ and denied Cannella’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. This appeal ensued.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination and dismissed Cannella’s appeal. The Court indicated that Cannella had not reached her employer’s building, but still had another block to go. Moreover, she was not at the premises where she worked when she fell. At the time of her fall, she had not begun any preliminary efforts in commencement of work, but rather still had to continue her commute on foot to her workplace. According to the Court, to award accidental disability retirement benefits under these circumstances would be to significantly extend the scope of coverage. The statutory language was designed to reassert the going and coming rule present in workers’ compensation law, providing that workers were not entitled to benefits for injuries sustained while traveling to and from work. Thus, the Court held the Board’s application of the accidental disability statute to the facts of the case was consistent with the legislative intent to enforce the going and coming rule.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link