Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1126-14T2
01-06-2016
CONNIE BUENDIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent-Respondent.
Samuel Michael Gaylord argued the cause for appellant (Gaylord Popp, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Gaylord, on the brief). Jeffrey S. Ignatowitz, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph F. Dorfler, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Alvarez and Manahan. On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees' Retirement System, Docket No. 2-10-275678. Samuel Michael Gaylord argued the cause for appellant (Gaylord Popp, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Gaylord, on the brief). Jeffrey S. Ignatowitz, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph F. Dorfler, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Petitioner Connie Buendia appeals from a final determination of the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees' Retirement System (the Board) that she is not entitled to accidental retirement benefits. We affirm.
Buendia was a residential services worker with the New Jersey Veteran's Memorial Home. On or about April 16, 2012, following an injury sustained in the course of her employment, Buendia applied for an accidental disability retirement benefit. On January 17, 2013, the Board denied Buendia's application as to accidental disability benefits based on its finding that the injury was not caused by an undesigned or unexpected traumatic event. However, the Board did find that Buendia was totally and permanently disabled and granted ordinary disability retirement.
Buendia subsequently appealed the denial of accidental disability, and the case was referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). On March 14, 2014, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
We briefly recite the facts elicited at the hearing. On March 30, 2012, Buendia injured her shoulder while operating a floor-stripping machine in the course of her duties. She was injured when she lost control of the machine as it jerked about two to three feet to the left. She reported that she felt pain in her shoulder as the machine pulled her to the left.
Buendia described the machine as having a heavy, round, metal base with a handle extending about waist high. Buendia received training as to how to operate the machine. In normal operation, the machine vibrates and moves side to side. Buendia noted that the machine was hard to control when it was being operated. She testified that the machine was not defective but that she lost control because it was heavy and difficult to control. Later in the day, Buendia reported her injury to her supervisor, and subsequently completed an accident report detailing the circumstances surrounding the injury.
In a written opinion, the ALJ concluded the accident was neither undesigned nor unintended under the standard established in Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., 192 N.J. 189 (2007). Therefore, the denial of accidental disability retirement benefits was affirmed. On September 18, 2014, the Board adopted the ALJ's recommendation and denied Buendia's application for accidental disability retirement. This appeal followed.
The ALJ reasoned that Buendia should be denied accidental retirement benefits since she was trained in operating the machine, the machine was difficult for her to control, and there was no evidence that she misused the machine or that it malfunctioned. She held that the event was not unintended or undesigned and therefore Buendia failed to carry her burden of proof. The ALJ also held that "injuring your shoulder while attempting to manage a stripping machine that is too big and heavy to control is not extraordinary or unusual in common experience."
On appeal, Buendia argues that the incident was undesigned and unexpected. In particular, Buendia contends that the jerking motion was unexpected and the result of an unanticipated or "excepted external event."
The scope of our review in an appeal from a final decision of an administrative agency is limited. Russo v. Bd. of Trs., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011) (citing In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007)). The agency's decision should be upheld unless there is a "clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." Ibid. (quoting Herrmann, supra, 192 N.J. at 27-28). We are not, however, bound by the "agency's interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue." Ibid. (quoting Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Sec, 64 N.J. 85, 93 (1973)).
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:15A-43, a member of the Public Employees' Retirement System 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, our Supreme Court held that in order to qualify for accidental 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);
In Russo, supra, 206 N.J. at 33, the Court pointed out that if the event is one that falls within the member's job description and training, it is not likely to satisfy this criterion.
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.]
Here, the record supports the ALJ's determination that Buendia failed to meet the Richardson standard because the alleged traumatic event was not undesigned or unexpected. Buendia received training on the stripping machine, and as the record shows, the machine was heavy, vibrated, hard to control, and moved from side to side. There is nothing in the record indicating that Buendia misused the machine or that the machine malfunctioned or was defective. As the ALJ noted, a coworker used the machine to finish stripping the floor after Buendia's injury.
Predicated upon our review of the record we conclude the Board's final decision was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and the decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We affirm the Board's decision substantially for the reasons stated by the ALJ in the initial decision.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION