Court muddies waters on standard
for accidental disability benefits
In past issues of NJ Cops Magazine, we have
reported about issues and cases involving or re-
lated to eligibility for accidental disability retire-
ment benefits. It would be an understatement
to say that decisions by the New Jersey courts
in this area are often confusing and seemingly
inconsistent. Two recent New Jersey Supreme
Court decisions illustrate this problem.
By way of background, the standards gov-
erning eligibility for accidental disability retire-
ment benefits are found generally in two prin-
cipal cases: Richardson v. Board of Trustees,
PFRS, 192 N.J. 189, 212-213 (2007) for physical
disability cases; and Patterson v. Board of Trust-
ees, SPRS, 194 N.J. 29, 34 (2008) for psychological disability cases.
An important factor in both types of cases is whether the disability
was caused by an incident that was “undesigned and unexpected.”
In other words, was the incident part of the officer’s job duties and
responsibilities or was it an event that was not anticipated even if
the officer was otherwise doing his or her job. This critical factor is
only satisfied if it was the latter.
In two cases decided in July – Christopher Mount v. Board of
Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System and Gerardo
Martinez v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement
System – the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed this “unde-
signed and unexpected” factor and applied it to the facts in the
cases before the Court. In the Mount case, the officer applied for
12
NEW JERSEY COPS
■ AUGUST 2018
accidental disability retirement benefits after
he “witnessed at close range the incineration of
three young victims in an explosion after a high-
speed motor vehicle collision.” The officer was
present when the car went up in flames, and
from about 4 or 5 feet away, he was able to see
and smell the bodies inside and saw that their
skin was melted. He was diagnosed with PTSD
and applied for accidental disability benefits
due to mental incapacity stemming from PTSD
and anxiety.
The PFRS Board concluded that the incident
was not “undesigned and unexpected.” The of-
ficer appealed to the Appellate Division, which
agreed with the PFRS Board, concluding that although the event
was horrific, it was still within the officer’s job description and was
contemplated by his training. In other words, it was not “unde-
signed or unexpected.”
The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the Appellate Divi-
sion’s decision, concluding that the event was in fact “undesigned
and unexpected.” The Court reasoned that the determination
of whether an event was undesigned or unexpected is not based
solely on the employee’s job description and extent of training,
but also requires consideration of the nature of the event itself. In
this case, as a result of the officer’s job description and training, he
could have anticipated being called to serious or fatal accidents.
However, he was not trained to combat, unassisted, such serious