JOHN WALTERS VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'Â RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4548-15T1
JOHN WALTERS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Respondent-Respondent.
Submitted July 12, 2017 – Decided July 26, 2017
Before Judges Simonelli and Carroll.
On appeal from the Board of Trustees, Public
Employees' Retirement System, PERS No.
2-10-290504.
Margolis Edelstein, attorneys for appellant
(Michael R. Miller, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton
Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; George E. Loeser, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner John Walters appeals from a May 3, 2016 decision
of the Board of Trustees (Board) of the Public Employees'
Retirement System (PERS). The Board adopted an Initial Decision
issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Edward J. Delanoy, Jr.,
recommending that the Board deny petitioner's application for
accidental disability retirement benefits because he failed to
prove that the event that caused his injuries occurred during and
as a result of his regular or assigned duties. Having reviewed
the record, we find the Board's decision is supported by
substantial credible evidence. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We affirm
substantially for the reasons stated by ALJ Delanoy in his
thoughtful written opinion.
The facts are essentially undisputed and are succinctly
summarized in the ALJ's Initial Decision as follows:
[Petitioner] was employed by the New
Jersey Department of Corrections for fifteen
years as a Senior Corrections Officer. On
January 5, 2014, he was so employed at the
Edna Mahon Correctional Facility for Wom[e]n
("Facility"), but this was a day off for
petitioner. He was contacted by his superiors
and asked if he wanted to work overtime. He
accepted the offer to work on the 10:00 p.m.
to 6:00 a.m. shift.
On the night in question, [petitioner]
put on his uniform, traveled to work and
arrived at the Facility at approximately 9:40
a.m. He arrived early because the weather was
bad, and because he wanted to allow himself
the extra time to fill out required overtime
paperwork and get to his post. In order to
get to his parking area, [petitioner] was
required to stop at a security gate manned by
an armed guard. [Petitioner] produced his
2 A-4548-15T1
identification card and proceeded to the
parking area. The security gate closed behind
him. Once beyond the security gate,
[petitioner] was expected to report
immediately to any emergency code that might
thereafter occur, even though he was not yet
at this post. Because he was on overtime,
[petitioner] could not proceed directly to his
post as he would normally do. Instead,
[petitioner] was required to report to
Thompson Hall to fill out overtime paperwork
before he could report to his post and begin
his shift.
[Petitioner] parked his car and opened
his driver's side door to exit. [Petitioner]
took one step, slipped on some ice, and fell
to the ground. [Petitioner] was transferred
to the hospital by ambulance, and never made
it to his post that evening. Petitioner was
not undertaking any of his normal duties of a
corrections officer when he fell. A
Department of Corrections Investigative
Report set forth that the incident occurred
prior to third shift. [] [Petitioner] began
to be paid only after his shift began at 10:00
p.m., and was not paid for the preliminary
duties he performed prior to the official
start of his shift.
In his legal analysis, the ALJ noted that, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 43:15A-43, a member of the PERS may be retired on an
accidental disability pension 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 his regular or
assigned duties[.]" In Richardson v. Board of Trustees, Police &
Firemen's Retirement System, 192 N.J. 189, 212-13 (2007), the
Supreme Court held that in order to qualify for accidental
3 A-4548-15T1
disability retirement benefits, a member of the retirement system
must establish:
1. that he is 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 his usual or any
other duty.
The ALJ determined petitioner was still in the process of
commuting at the time of his accident. Citing Kasper v. Board of
Trustees, Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 164 N.J. 564 (2000),
the ALJ concluded that "[petitioner] had done nothing more than
park his vehicle, and he was not engaged in his regular or assigned
duties, nor was he actively preparing for his regular or assigned
duties. Thus, the injury was not causally connected to his work."
4 A-4548-15T1
The Board adopted the ALJ's decision and denied petitioner's
application for accidental disability retirement benefits. This
appeal followed.
The standard of review that applies in an appeal from a state
agency decision is well established. "Judicial review of an
agency's final decision is generally limited to a determination
of whether the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
or lacks fair support in the record." Caminiti v. Bd. of Trs.,
431 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div. 2013) (citing Hemsey v. Bd. of
Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 198 N.J. 215, 223 (2009)). In
reviewing an administrative decision, we ordinarily recognize the
agency's expertise in its particular field. Ibid. We are not
bound by an agency's statutory interpretation or other legal
determinations. Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret.
Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011).
After reviewing the record in light of the applicable standard
of review, we find no basis to disturb the Board's decision. See
Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 143 N.J. 22,
25 (1995). On appeal, petitioner argues that the Board erred in
disqualifying him on the sole basis that the event that led to his
injuries did not occur as a result of his regular or assigned
duties. We disagree. Petitioner's appellate contentions are
5 A-4548-15T1
without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
6 A-4548-15T1