unexpected” standard because that is exactly what his
training has prepared him for.
There are, however, two points which arguably contradict
this assertion, to a degree, and bear consideration:
First, even in Richardson, which was decided prior to Russo,
the court noted that N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7, the accidental disabili-
ty statute, requires that the accident or traumatic event occur
“during and as a result of the performance of [the member’s]
regular or assigned duties.” A member’s regular or assigned
duties are defined by a member’s job description. The argu-
ment can be made that, since the statute requires a member
to be engaged in the performance of his or her regular or as-
signed duties, it then follows that the member was perform-
ing an activity within the member’s job description when the
accident occurred. How, then, could the member be preclud-
ed from recovering accidental disability retirement benefits
for accidents occurring during activities which fall within the
member’s job description? It doesn’t make logical sense.
Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Mount v. Bd. of
Trustees, Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 233 N.J. 402 (2018) recent-
ly addressed the issue of whether an event is “undesigned and
unexpected” within the meaning of Richardson and Russo.
Specifically, the court referenced the above passage in Russo
as follows:
Our comment about training in Russo should not
be construed to mean that the inquiry regarding
whether an event is “undesigned and unexpected” is
resolved merely by reviewing the member’s job de-
scription and the scope of his or her training. In a giv-
en case, those considerations may weigh strongly for
or against an award of accidental disability benefits.
To properly apply the Richardson standard, however,
the board and a reviewing court must carefully con-
sider not only the member’s job responsibilities and
training, but all aspects of the event itself. No single
factor governs the analysis.
The court’s decision in Mount appears to represent a will-
ingness and, in fact, a deliberate effort by the New Jersey Su-
preme Court to signal to the boards of the pension systems
who would rely solely upon a member’s job description in
denying a member’s application for accidental disability re-
tirement benefits that such blind reliance is misplaced. The
court’s decision in Mount has the opportunity to relax some-
what the heretofore draconian denials that the board has en-
gaged in in the past. Accordingly, courts should take the di-
rection from the Supreme Court in forming their decisions
regarding whether an accident is “undesigned and unexpect-
ed.”
It may take some time for the courts to catch on, but having
a dedicated, knowledgeable and experienced PBA attorney to
guide you through the process can go a long way in navigating
the pitfalls, issues and application consternation involved in
securing your accidental disability retirement benefits. d
A former municipal police officer, county corrections officer
and municipal prosecutor, Stuart J. Alterman has represented
law enforcement officers for more than 25 years in all areas of
employment issues. He is an NJ State PBA Lifetime Silver Card
recipient. Arthur J. Murray, who has extensive practice in the
Office of Administrative Law in Law Enforcement Disciplinary
Matters, contributed to this report.
www.njcopsmagazine.com
■ OCTOBER 2018 25