As reported by NJ.com, just hours after Governor Chris Christie claimed he’d reached an “unprecedented accord with the New Jersey Education Association” that would “solve our long-term problems with the pension and health benefit systems,” the criticism poured in, from the NJLEA, from other union leaders and even a former New Jersey governor. NJLEA
Retiree Benefits
Christie Pension Commission Recommends Plan For Fewer Benefits
As reported by NJ.com, Governor Chris Christie’s high-powered pension commission has proposed a sweeping plan that would save the State billions in retirement and health care costs while reducing benefits for hundreds of thousands of public workers. The commissi0n says New Jersey needs to drastically change its pension and health plans. Christie’s budget address…
Judge Rules Christie Broke Law By Cutting Pension Payments
As reported by NJ.com, in a significant blow to Governor Chris Christie, a judge ruled today that the Governor broke a law he signed by cutting $1.57 billion from a pension payment this year, and must now work with state lawmakers to restore the money. The decision could blow a massive hole in the…
Will New Jersey’s Pension Fund Run Dry in Four Years?
As reported in NJ.COM, New Jersey’s unfunded public employee pension liabilities have soared to $83 billion, more than double previous estimates, as the state comes into compliance with new accounting rules, according to a report released today by Moody’s Investors Services, a Wall Street ratings agency.
Governor Chris Christie’s administration acknowledged the change in a…
NJ Public Workers Pay High Percentage of Health Care Costs, Analysis Says
As reported by nj.com, a new analysis says the State’s employees pay more than the national average for state government workers toward their health insurance costs. The analysis by NJ Spotlight notes that the cost of New Jersey’s public employee health insurance coverage remains the third-highest in the United States. But it also shows the…
Christie Retroactively Cuts Pension Payment
This is a very interesting article regarding how Governor Christie employed some "fuzzy math" to reduce the State’s legally mandated pension payment. NJSPOTLIGHT
Christie Threatens To Take “Extreme Measures” to Overhaul Pension Fund
As reported on NJ.Com, Chris Christie urged Democrats in the state Legislature to work with him to overhaul the public workers’ retirement fund for a second time, or he would take “extreme measures” if they failed to cooperate.
“I’m ready work with the entire Legislature to come up with ideas to fix this, but if …
The State of the Country’s Public Pension Systems
Linked below is a very interesting and powerful article published in Bloomberg Personal Finance that discusses the perils of various public employee pension systems across the United States. Every Public Employee in the State of New Jersey should take a few minutes to review this article to educate themselves regarding "the state" of Public Employee Pension Systems across America.…
New Jersey Senate Republicans Push Christie Pension Reform and Civil Service Reform
As reported on New Jersey State Senator Tom Kean’s website, Senator Kean appears to be pushing the Christie agenda of Civil Service reform and Public Employee Pension reform.
In a press release dated July 26, 2013, Kean stated: “I’m glad that Senate Democrats have finally decided to show up to work in Trenton this …
PR&A Wins Notable Public Pension Appeal
On July 30, 2010, the Appellate Division decided James Henderson v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees’ Retirement System, Docket No.: A-6176-08T2. In the case, James Henderson appealed the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees’ Retirement System’s (“Board”) denial of his application for accidental disability benefits. Frank M. Crivelli, Esq. and Donald C. Barbati, Esq. of the Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman law firm, and the authors of this blog, successfully argued to reverse the denial, thereby obtaining accidental disability benefits for Henderson.
The case addressed whether Henderson was entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits based upon two (2) separate work-related incidents. Notably, it was undisputed that the first incident causing Henderson injury constituted a “traumatic event.” After initially becoming injured, Henderson was unable to work for some period of time, returned to light duty for a while, and then, ultimately, returned to full duty. The injury was then aggravated and accelerated by a second incident in which Henderson attempted to perform an ordinary task within the scope of his duties and responsibilities of employment.
The Board initially denied Henderson’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. To support the denial, the Board determined that the second accident did not constitute a “traumatic event” within the meaning of the applicable case law. The Board also found that the injury originally suffered by Henderson in the first incident constituted a “pre-existing disease or condition,” thereby precluding him from receiving said benefits. This appeal ensued.
On appeal, Henderson argued that: (1) the second incident constituted a “traumatic event” within the meaning of the applicable case law; and (2) the term “pre-existing disease or condition” was never intended to include injuries suffered in prior traumatic events for purposes of whether an individual qualifies for accidental benefits.
In its decision, the Appellate Division agreed with the Board’s initial determination that the second incident did not constitute a traumatic event within the meaning of the applicable law. Significantly, however, the Court agreed with our contention that the term “pre-existing disease or condition” does not include injuries suffered in prior traumatic events. Rather, the Court found that term has been uniformly applied to bodily diseases or conditions that were not caused by a traumatic event. The Court cited a litany of case law to support this contention and articulated that the Board’s suggestion that the injuries resulting from the original traumatic event and their sequelae should be treated as pre-existing diseases or conditions is utterly inconsistent with the applicable law.