NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0950-15T2
NATALIE BALISTA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND
FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Respondent-Respondent.
__________________________________
Argued January 24, 2017 – Decided September 5, 2017
Before Judges Espinosa and Guadagno.
On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the
Police and Firemen's Retirement System,
Department of Treasury, PFRS No. 3-10-48274.
Christopher A. Gray argued the cause for
appellant (Sciarra & Catrambone, LLC,
attorneys; Mr. Gray, on the briefs).
Amy Chung, Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney
General, argued the cause for respondent
(Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Robert E.
Kelly, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Natalie Balista appeals from the October 26,
2015 decision of the Board of Trustees (Board) of the Police and
Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS), adopting the decision of
Administrative Law Judge Elia A. Pelios denying petitioner's
application for accidental disability retirement benefits. We
affirm.
Petitioner testified before Judge Pelios that she became
employed as a full-time police officer with the Borough of Pine
Beach in 2002. On March 17, 2011, petitioner was dispatched to
provide assistance to a woman who had fallen and could not get
up. When petitioner arrived at the victim's home, she observed
an elderly woman sitting on the ground by herself near the front
walkway. The victim showed no signs of distress1 and told
petitioner she was "fine" but just needed help to get up.
Petitioner testified she "walked behind [the victim,]
squatted down and put my arms under her arms." Petitioner
experienced difficulty in lifting the victim and had to
"struggle because [the victim] was not assisting . . . at all."
The victim later told petitioner she had undergone double knee
1
Petitioner did not know whether emergency medical services
(EMS) had been called, and explained that Pine Beach does not
have EMS and relies on neighboring towns in the event of a
medical emergency.
2 A-0950-15T2
replacement surgery and could not help with the lift. The
entire incident lasted less than one minute. After petitioner
made sure the victim got into her house, she left.
After the incident, petitioner began to experience back and
shoulder symptoms. An MRI conducted on March 25, 2011, revealed
rotator cuff tendonitis. Several steroid injections were
followed by arthroscopic surgery of the right shoulder in May
2011. In April 2012, petitioner underwent back surgery.
Petitioner attempted to return to work in February 2013, but was
unable to fulfill her job requirements. A second back surgery
followed in July 2013.
In a comprehensive written decision, Judge Pelios concluded
"there was no accident or external event . . . which caused the
injury to petitioner." The Board then adopted Judge Pelios'
findings and conclusions in the final agency decision under
review.
On appeal, petitioner argues the events giving rise to this
incident were undesigned and unexpected, and therefore she is
entitled to an accidental disability pension.
Our review of administrative agency action is limited, and
we generally "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.
3 A-0950-15T2
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)). We
are not "bound by the agency's interpretation of a statute or
its determination of a strictly legal issue." Richardson, supra,
192 N.J. at 196 (quoting In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 658
(1999)). We "apply de novo review to an agency's interpretation
of a statute or case law." Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police &
Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011).
The PFRS provides for both ordinary, N.J.S.A. 43:16A-6, and
accidental, N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7, disability benefits. "The main
difference between the two is that ordinary disability
retirement need not have a work connection. . . . [and] an
accidental disability retirement entitles a member to receive a
higher level of benefits than those provided under an ordinary
disability retirement." Patterson v. Bd. of Trs., State Police
Ret. Sys., 194 N.J. 29, 42-43 (2008). A PFRS member is eligible
to "be retired on an accidental disability retirement allowance"
4 A-0950-15T2
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." N.J.S.A.
43:16A-7(1).
The Court in Richardson held that a claimant for accidental
disability retirement benefits must prove:
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.
[Richardson, supra, 192 N.J. at 212-13.]
The Richardson Court explained:
the fact that a member is injured while
performing his ordinary duties does not
disqualify him from receiving accidental
5 A-0950-15T2
disability benefits; some injuries sustained
during ordinary work effort will pass muster
and others will not. The polestar of the
inquiry is whether, during the regular
performance of his job, an unexpected
happening, not the result of pre-existing
disease alone or in combination with the work,
has occurred and directly resulted in the
permanent and total disability of the member.
[Id. at 214.]
The main question before Judge Pelios was whether the
accident was "undesigned and unexpected," thereby satisfying the
traumatic event requirement as set forth in Richardson. Id. at
212-13. Petitioner testified that, during her nine years as a
Pine Beach police officer, she had rendered similar assistance
"many times" while responding to calls where someone needed to
be lifted. Relying on this testimony, Judge Pelios concluded,
"Petitioner sustained her injury while and from performing
exactly the task she undertook and intended to perform: lifting
the woman from the ground."
We agree that petitioner's injury was not "undesigned and
unexpected." Although she did not expect to be injured when she
lifted the elderly woman, the injury was "not an extraordinary
or unusual consequence in common experience." Russo v. Teachers'
Pension & Annuity Fund, 62 N.J. 142, 154 (1973).
Affirmed.
6 A-0950-15T2