NJ Court Sends Pension Denial Back to Retirement Board

The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has overturned the denial of an accidental disability pension to a firefighter, and sent the matter back to the state’s Public Employees’ Retirement System for further consideration. Louis T. Madden suffered a career ending injury while at the scene of a fire on December 6, 2019.

Madden was a full-time EMT for Pennsauken Township. He also served as a volunteer firefighter for the township’s fire department. Following his injury, he sought a disability pension, claiming that when he responded to an emergency in the township, it was in a dual capacity as an EMT and a firefighter.

According to the decision, the Public Employees’ Retirement System Board of Trustees rejected Madden’s request for an accidental disability retirement (ADR) concluding he was operating at the fire as a volunteer. Instead, the board granted him an ordinary disability retirement (ODR).

  • On December 6, 2019, petitioner sustained injuries while at the scene of a fire.
  • Specifically, petitioner was injured when he was struck in the face by a sixteen-foot aluminum ladder that he was moving.
  • On March 25, 2021, petitioner filed an application for ADR benefits.
  • In support of petitioner’s application, David Weiss, D.O. completed a “Medical Examination By Personal Or Treating Physician” form and noted that petitioner was “permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of an accident that occurred during the performance of [ his] regular assigned duties.”
  • On November 17, 2021, the Board considered and denied petitioner’s ADR application on the grounds that his “disability [was] not a direct result of the [December 6, 2019] incident.”
  • Nevertheless, the Board granted petitioner ODR benefits.
  • Petitioner administratively appealed the denial of his application for ADR benefits and the matter was referred to the OAL for a contested hearing.
  • While his matter was pending with the OAL, the Board requested that petitioner be re-evaluated by an orthopedic specialist.
  • Based on the re-evaluation, the Board “reversed its previous finding and determined that [petitioner’s] disability [was] a direct result of the incident on December 6, 2019.”
  • The Board, however, also found that “the disabling incident did not occur during and as a result of [petitioner’s] regular or assigned duties as an [EMT] . . . but rather while he was engaged in his duties as a Volunteer Firefighter.”
  • Accordingly, on March 17, 2023, the Board determined that petitioner was not entitled to ADR benefits. The Board then requested that the matter be withdrawn from the OAL.
  • On appeal, petitioner argues that the Board’s finding that he was ineligible for ADR benefits should be reversed and the matter should be remanded for a hearing before the OAL.
  • He contends that there is a material issue of disputed fact concerning whether he was disabled during the course of his public employment.
  • [W]e focus on petitioner’s … argument that he was deprived of procedural due process because the Board made a factual finding on a disputed material issue.
  • An “agency’s statutory obligation must concur with its constitutional obligation.”
  • Under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, no person may be deprived of property or liberty absent due process of law.
  • Due process requires the state to provide “notice and an opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.”
  • In this matter there is a material adjudicative fact in dispute. Whether petitioner’s injury occurred during and as a result of his regular or assigned duties as an EMT is material because it was the basis for the Board’s denial of his application for ADR benefits. Petitioner contends that anytime he was “dispatched to a fire scene after 2016 . . . [he] went in [his] dual capacity as a firefighter and an [EMT].”
  • Additionally, he points to the fact that the Township issued him a firefighting uniform with EMT patches and that he had access to emergency medical equipment on each firefighting vehicle.
  • He also points to the “State of New Jersey Job Descriptions” for EMT and EMT, UFD. The job description for an EMT makes no reference to fires or firefighting activities.
  • The job description for an EMT, UFD, however, includes “answers fire alarms and assists in extinguishing fires” and lists “[p]articipates in firefighting operations” as an example of work.
  • Moreover, the definitional note on the job description for EMT states that “all duties performed on the job may not be listed.” Therefore, there is a disputed issue of whether petitioner can demonstrate a connection between his EMT work and firefighting work.
  • Accordingly, petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the OAL before an administrative law judge.
  • We, therefore, reverse the Board’s September 21, 2023 decision and remand this matter with direction that it be sent to the OAL for a contested hearing.
  • In doing so, we express no view on whether petitioner can establish that he was disabled during the course of his regular duties; rather, we leave that issue for a factual resolution on a complete record.

Here is a copy of the decision:

About Curt Varone

Curt Varone has over 45 years of fire service experience and 35 as a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine. His background includes 29 years as a career firefighter in Providence (retiring as a Deputy Assistant Chief), as well as volunteer and paid on call experience. He is the author of two books: Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, (2006, 2nd ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2014, 4th ed. 2022) and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook (2007), and is a contributing editor for Firehouse Magazine writing the Fire Law column.
x

Check Also

Washington State Recruit Noose Case Dismissed

A lawsuit filed by an African American recruit firefighter in Washington state who had a noose placed around his neck by a fellow recruit, has been voluntarily dismissed. Elijah Page filed the action in federal court back in 2023 against the Clark County Fire District 6, three chief officers, a captain and former recruit John Erickson.

NY Court Rules FD Violated Lieutenant’s Rights

A Suffolk County, New York judge has ruled that the Stony Brook Fire District improperly suspended a volunteer fire lieutenant, and in doing so violated his statutory right to due process. Thomas J. Killeen filed suit under a NY law that allows aggrieved persons to challenge acts or omissions of a governmental entity, an action known as an Article 78 proceeding.