nor did the officer hear any screams from the occupants. After trying to control a crowd of bystanders urging him to“ do something,” he approached the vehicle which exploded in flames as he neared. The fire department had been alerted and, upon arrival, the officer was not asked to assist. The officer returned to his patrol car and put out cones for traffic control. The victims’ bodies were removed from the vehicle without his participation.
The officer observed the bodies of three teenagers who had died in the accident. He described it as a horrific scene. He returned to work for a period of time after the accident and did not receive treatment after he started abusing alcohol. Ultimately, he was sent to an alcohol rehabilitation program and returned to work, but still had problems despite maintaining abstinence from alcohol.
The officer filed for accidental disability retirement benefits, claiming that he was incapacitated because he suffered from PTSD and anxiety. The PFRS Board ultimately held that he was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits because the traumatic event( the horrific accident scene and the sight of the bodies of the three teenagers) was not“ undesigned and unexpected” as required by Richardson. The PFRS Board awarded an ordinary disability pension, and the officer appealed the decision to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division upheld the PFRS Board’ s decision. The court noted, relying upon prior cases, that an employee who experiences a horrific event which falls within his or her job description, and for which he or she has been trained, will be unlikely to meet the undesigned and unexpected element of the Richardson standard. The court analyzed the officer’ s actions at what was an indisputably horrific event in the context of the officer’ s training and job specifications and concluded that the officer’ s actions were entirely consistent with what he was trained to do and the tasks he was obligated to perform. Although his job duties included assisting in the extraction of dead or injured persons from vehicles, he was not called to do so in this particular incident. The officer argued that it was his inability to help the occupants that constituted the traumatic event and that both his lack of training and the tools necessary to help the victims made the event undesigned and unexpected.
The court disagreed with the officer’ s argument and upheld the PFRS Board’ s decision. The court concluded that the officer’ s actions were consistent with the tasks he was expected to perform at the accident scene and that the presence of dead or injured victims at a serious motor vehicle collision cannot be considered to be unexpected for a trained law enforcement officer. While the court sympathized with the officer’ s frustration that he was unable to help, it concluded that he did not assume any role that fell outside his job description, or for which he was not trained.
The Supreme Court will now review this decision. The court’ s decision will have an impact either in limiting the circumstances under which an employee will be eligible for accidental disability retirement benefits based upon a psychological disability, or in expanding the Richardson standard as interpreted by the Appellate Division in this case. In any event, officers who are in similar circumstances should consult with an experienced attorney familiar with PFRS accidental disability retirement appeals and what has to be done to satisfy the standard however the court ultimately decides the case. We will keep the NJ State PBA and its members advised when the court issues its decision. There is no specific timetable for a decision, although we would expect that a decision may be issued by summer of 2017. d
www. njcopsmagazine. com ■ NOVEMBER 2016 11