JAMES LETTS VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2250-16T3
JAMES LETTS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND
FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Respondent-Respondent.
_______________________________________
Submitted September 12, 2018 – Decided September 26, 2018
Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Board of Trustees, Police and
Firemen's Retirement System, Docket No. 3-10-51329.
Gaylord Popp, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Samuel M.
Gaylord, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Danielle P. Schimmel, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This appeal asks us to determine whether the Board of Trustees, Police
and Firemen's Retirement System (the Board) correctly applied N.J.S.A.
43:16A-15.2 in its final agency decision that reduced James Letts' accidental
disability retirement (ADR) benefits by the amount of workers' compensation
settlement proceeds he received after the effective date of his retirement.
Although Letts had distinct qualifying injuries for the ADR and workers'
compensation settlement, we conclude the statute requires an offset because the
injuries arose from the same incident.
In August 2013, Letts was shot twice while performing his duties as a
Trenton police officer. About two weeks later, he filed a workers' compensation
claim for injuries to his right shoulder and abdomen from the shooting. Over a
year later, while his workers' compensation claim was pending, Letts applied for
ADR from the Police and Fireman's Retirement System (PFRS) claiming total
and permanent disability due to post-traumatic stress disorder he also sustained
from the shooting.
In July 2015, Letts settled his workers' compensation claim for 165 weeks
at $260.04, totaling $42,906.00, due to permanent partial injuries of the right
shoulder and abdomen. Two months later, the Board approved Letts' application
for ADR benefits effective August 1, 2015, due to his post-traumatic stress
A-2250-16T3
2
disorder. In the Board's September 2015 letter advising him of the approval,
Letts was informed that his retirement benefits 1 could be subject to a reduction
of the amount workers' compensation payments he received after the effective
date of his retirement. Consequently, ten months later, the Board advised Letts
in a June 2016 letter, that under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2, the total amount of his
ADR benefits would be reduced by $28,703.51, the amount of the worker's
compensation settlement payments he received after his retirement was
approved.2
Letts requested the Board reconsider its position. Citing Rosales v. State
Dep't of the Judiciary, 373 N.J. Super. 29 (App. Div. 2004), Letts argued there
should not be an offset of his retirement benefits with his worker's compensation
settlement under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2 because the post-traumatic stress
disorder for which his ADR was based upon occurred after he returned to work
1
His monthly allowance of $5,181.55 was comprised of $4,198.61 for his
pension and $982.94 for an annuity.
2
The Board advised Letts that $16,258.77 of the current amount owed would
be recouped through monthly reductions of $1,126.83 in his retirement benefits
until the amount was paid, and for the past amount due of $12,444.74, unless he
made a lump sum payment within thirty days, or there would be monthly
deductions of $405.47 from his retirements until the amount was paid.
A-2250-16T3
3
from his workers' compensation leave for different injuries to his right shoulder
and abdomen.
On October 18, 2016, following the previous days' hearing in which it
heard Letts' arguments and considered his submissions, the Board wrote to Letts'
counsel advising that it decided not to change the initial determination that Letts'
ADR benefits were subject to an offset by his workers' compensation settlement
under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2. In doing so, the Board rejected Letts' argument
that his separate injuries for the workers' compensation settlement – right
shoulder and abdomen – and the ADR – post-traumatic stress disorder –
precluded an offset under the statute because they both arose from the same
shooting incident. The Board also pointed out that Letts was made aware of the
potential offset when it advised him that his ADR was approved.
The Board later denied Letts' request for reconsideration of its decision,
or in the alternative a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law, and
rendered a final agency decision denying Letts' appeal on January 10, 2017. The
Board essentially reiterated the reasoning it expressed in its October 18 letter
that N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2 requires an offset of his ADR in the amount of the
workers' compensation settlement payments received after the effective date of
his retirement. The Board added, "the basis [of] the statute is to prevent double
A-2250-16T3
4
recovery for the same incident. Permitting . . . Letts to waive the offset would
be contrary to the statutory intent."
Before us, Letts reiterates the arguments he presented to the Board. He
contends the Board erred in its application of N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2 because the
statute does not provide for an offset where the workers' compensation injuries
differ from the injury for which the ADR was approved. He, therefore,
maintains that there is no double recovery for the same disability as the Board
determined.
Consequently, we are asked to weigh-in on the Board's interpretation of
N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2, which provides in pertinent part:
b. An application for retirement benefits may be
approved by the board of trustees while the member,
applying for such benefits, is in receipt of periodic
benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. If a
retirant receiving an accidental disability retirement
allowance becomes a recipient of periodic benefits
under the workers' compensation law after the date of
retirement, the pension portion of the retirement
allowance payable to the retirant shall be reduced,
during the period of the payment of the periodic
benefits, dollar-for-dollar in the amount of the periodic
benefits received after the date of retirement, subject to
the provisions of [N.J.S.A. 43:16A-12-4].
The statute does not specifically state that for the offset to apply, the retirant's
injuries upon which the ADR benefits and the workers' compensation benefits
A-2250-16T3
5
are based, must be the same, or even occur from the same incident.
Nevertheless, the Board's interpretation makes complete sense.
It is well settled that a primary purpose of statutory interpretation is to
"seek to effectuate the 'fundamental purpose for which the legislation was
enacted.'" Twp. of Pennsauken v. Schad, 160 N.J. 156, 170 (1999) (quoting N.J.
Builders, Owners & Managers Ass'n v. Blair, 60 N.J. 330, 338 (1972)).
Moreover, we "afford substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of a
statute that the agency is charged with enforcing." Richardson v. Bd. of Trs.,
Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189, 196 (2007). "Such deference has
been specifically extended to state agencies that administer pension statutes[,]"
because "'a state agency brings experience and specialized knowledge to its task
of administering and regulating a legislative enactment within its field of
expertise.'" Piatt v. Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 443 N.J. Super. 80, 99 (App.
Div. 2015) (quoting In re Election Law Enf't Comm'n Advisory Op. No. 01-
2008, 201 N.J. 254, 262 (2010)).
N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2 was enacted to prevent the "simultaneous receipt of
compensation benefits and disability benefits." Cty. of Mercer v. State, Dept.
of Treasury, Div. of Pensions Bd. of Trs., 193 N.J. Super. 229, 235 (App. Div.
1984). Recognizing this statutory intent, the Board properly determined that
A-2250-16T3
6
application of the statute's setoff provision to prevent simultaneous receipt of
the ADR benefits and workers' compensation benefits from the same incident –
regardless that there were injuries to different body parts involved in the
respective approvals – furthers the legislative goal to bar double recovery.
Furthermore, Letts' reliance upon Rosales is misplaced. There, we
recognized that through N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2, PFRS, was modified "in 1971 to
provide for an actuarial offset of both accidental and ordinary disability pensions
when one received Workers' Compensation benefits for the same injury as the
pension." Rosales, 373 N.J. Super. at 39 (citing Leoni v. Twp. of Hamilton, 134
N.J. Super. 231, 235 (App. Div. 1975)).3 However, the acknowledgement in
Rosales that under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2, benefits from an ADR and a workers'
compensation claim for the same injury should be offset, does not logically
extend to support Letts' contention that we should now interpret the statute to
preclude offsetting those respective benefits where they are based upon different
injuries but they arise from the same incident. To do so would allow a retirant
to parse out his injury claims in an ADR application and a workers'
3
We further pointed out in Rosales that: "The pension rules were amended . . .
in 1994 to change offsets of accidental disability pensions from an actuarial
offset to a dollar for dollar basis when there is a Workers' Compensation award.
However, the Division of Pensions no longer sought to take an offset of ordinary
disability pensions, N.J.A.C. 17:1-4.32." Id. at 40.
A-2250-16T3
7
compensation claim to enjoy double recovery, clashing with the clear intent of
N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.2. Hence, we discern no error in the Board's interpretation
of the statute because its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,
and did not violate legislative policies. Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171
(2014); Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27
(2011).
Affirmed.
A-2250-16T3
8