Tanya D. Berry v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: A-0253-24
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0253-24

TANYA D. BERRY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent-Respondent. __________________________

Argued January 28, 2026 – Decided April 27, 2026

Before Judges Gummer and Jacobs.

On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System, Department of the Treasury, PFRS No. xx4908.

Samuel M. Gaylord argued the matter for appellant (Szaferman Lakind Blumstein & Blader, attorneys; Samuel M. Gaylord, on the brief).

Thomas R. Hower, Staff Attorney, argued the matter for respondent (Nels J. Lauritzen, Legal Affairs Deputy Director, attorney; Thomas R. Hower, on the brief). PER CURIAM

Petitioner Tanya D. Berry appeals from a final administrative

determination issued by respondent. Board of Trustees of the Police and

Firemen's Retirement System (Board). The Board denied Berry's application for

accidental disability retirement benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7,

concluding the incident causing her disability was not "undesigned and

unexpected" as required by law. We affirm.

I.

Berry worked as a senior correctional police officer at the Edna Mahan

Correctional Facility for Women. On March 15, 2014, she was assigned "rover"

duty, which included driving a van to escort inmates and deliver paperwork.

According to Berry, "[t]hat assignment entailed 'a lot of in and out . . . of the

vehicle.'" Berry had received training from the Department of Corrections

(DOC) on how to operate the vans and secure inmates in the vehicle.

The van she used that day lacked a running board or "stepper," which she

was unfamiliar with. Berry, who is 5'3", grabbed a handle inside the van and

pulled herself up to enter the van. While doing so, she twisted her right knee,

hearing a "pop." She completed her shift and worked a second shift, during

A-0253-24 2 which she experienced "shooting pain" in her knee and groin. She sought

medical treatment and reported the injury to her supervisors.

Berry returned to work after the incident and underwent physical therapy.

In January 2017, she had her first knee surgery and never returned to work. She

underwent six more knee surgeries. The DOC initiated the pension process for

her in August 2022. Berry submitted an application for involuntary accidental

disability retirement.

On June 12, 2023, the Board denied Berry's application for accidental

disability retirement benefits. Specifically, the Board found Berry was

permanently and totally disabled while performing regular duties, and not from

any willful negligence. However, the Board determined the event was not

"undesigned and unexpected" and granted Berry ordinary disability retirement

benefits.

Berry appealed, and the matter was referred to the Office of

Administrative Law. A hearing was conducted in January 2024 before an

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Berry testified; the Board presented no

witnesses. The ALJ issued a decision in June 2024, affirming the Board's denial.

The Board adopted the ALJ's decision in an August 14, 2024 final administrative

determination, which Berry appeals.

A-0253-24 3 Berry argues the Board erred in finding the incident was not "undesigned

and unexpected." She contends "[t]he combination of circumstances—[the] lack

of a running board, the unusually high elevation of the van, . . . her physical

stature," and the assignment to a vehicle she had not used before—"created an

atypical, externally influenced situation that led directly to her injury."

II.

"Our review of administrative agency decisions is limited." Russo v. Bd.

of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011) (citing In re

Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007)). "An administrative agency's final quasi-

judicial decision will be sustained 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, 192 N.J. at 27-28). "We also recognize that state

agencies possess expertise and knowledge in their particular fields." Caminiti

v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 431 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div.

2013) (citing Hemsey v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 198 N.J. 215,

223 (2009)). However, we are not bound by an agency's interpretation of law.

Ibid.

N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7(a)(1) governs eligibility for accidental disability

retirement:

A-0253-24 4 Upon the written application by a member in service, . . . any member may be retired on an accidental disability retirement allowance, provided that the medical board, after a medical examination of such member, shall certify that 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 and that such disability was not the result of the member's willful negligence and that such member is mentally or physically incapacitated for the performance of his usual duty and of any other available duty in the department which his employer is willing to assign to him. . . .

A claimant must prove permanent and total disability as a direct result of

"a traumatic event [that] is essentially the same as what we historically

understood an accident to be⸺an unexpected external happening that directly

causes injury and is not the result of pre-existing disease alone or in combination

with work effort." Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192

N.J. 189, 212 (2007). See also Moran v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret.

Sys., 438 N.J. Super. 346 (App. Div. 2014); Brooks v. Bd. of Trs., Dep't of

Treasury, 425 N.J. Super. 277 (App. Div. 2012).

The ALJ found⸺and the Board agreed⸺Berry was injured while

performing her regular duties. She was familiar with rover assignments and had

previously entered and exited vans as part of her job. The injury occurred when

she pulled herself into a van without a step or running board. The record shows

A-0253-24 5 no evidence of a defect or malfunction in the van. The injury resulted from

Berry's own physical exertion in entering the vehicle, not from an external force

or extraordinary circumstance.

Richardson and subsequent cases clarify that ordinary work effort, even if

strenuous, does not constitute a traumatic event unless accompanied by an

unintended external event or an extraordinary consequence. 192 N.J. at 202. In

Moran, the petitioner faced a unique emergency requiring untrained,

extraordinary action. 438 N.J. Super. at 351. In Brooks, the injury resulted from

students dropping their end of a heavy weight-lifting bench, an external force.

425 N.J. Super. at 283. Here, Berry's injury stemmed from her own exertion in

entering the van, a routine job activity. The facts do not demonstrate an

unintended external event or an extraordinary consequence unusual in common

experience.

The Board's determination conforms with precedent and is supported by

substantial credible evidence. Berry has not shown the Board's action was

arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Affirmed.

A-0253-24 6