ANNE TRUZZOLINO VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM(POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM), A-4753-14T2

Anne Truzzolino, a PFRS member and juvenile corrections officer since 2001, was struck in the head by an inmate during a restraint on March 11, 2011.
Treated at hospital for concussion; neurologist Dr. Michael Sananman later diagnosed post-concussion syndrome with headaches, insomnia, concentration problems, and tinnitus, concluding she could not return to work.
Truzzolino applied for accidental disability retirement on September 26, 2011, alleging neck herniations, severe migraines, and psychiatric symptoms; the PFRS Board denied benefits in August 2012 for lack of total and permanent disability and lack of direct causation from the March 2011 incident.
On administrative appeal, an ALJ heard testimony from Truzzolino, Dr. Sananman (appellant’s expert), and Dr. Steven Lomazow (Board’s expert); the ALJ found Truzzolino permanently and totally disabled and favored Dr. Sananman.
The PFRS Board adopted the ALJ’s factual findings with amplification/modification but rejected the ALJ’s legal conclusions and credibility determinations, reversing the ALJ’s recommendation and denying benefits.
Appellate Division reviewed for arbitrariness, capriciousness, or lack of record support and affirmed the Board’s denial, finding the Board provided ample, supported reasons (e.g., inconsistencies in testimony and flaws in ALJ’s credibility assessment).

Issue	Truzzolino's Argument	PFRS Board's Argument	Held
Whether Truzzolino is entitled to accidental disability retirement (permanently and totally disabled as direct result of a traumatic work event)	March 2011 assault caused post-concussion syndrome and related conditions rendering her permanently and totally disabled	Board contends record lacks evidence of total/permanent disability and direct causation from the incident; expert testimony contained inconsistencies and relied on self-reporting	Affirmed Board: denial upheld; Board’s decision not arbitrary and supported by record
Whether Board permissibly rejected ALJ’s credibility findings favoring Truzzolino’s expert	ALJ credited Dr. Sananman over Board expert; Truzzolino argued Board improperly substituted its judgment	Board identified inconsistencies in Dr. Sananman’s testimony and found ALJ’s reasons (e.g., alleged bias of Board expert) insufficient; rejection supported by record	Held: Board may reject ALJ findings where supported; appellate court found Board’s reasons adequate and did not improperly substitute judgment

In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (2007) (standard for appellate review of agency adjudications)
Mayflower Securities Co. v. Bureau of Securities, 64 N.J. 85 (1973) (courts not bound by agency legal interpretations)
Cavalieri v. Bd. of Trs. of the Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004) (agency may not simply substitute its judgment for ALJ without basis)
Gensollen v. Pareja, 416 N.J. Super. 585 (App. Div. 2010) (expert compensation/bias may be probative)
Espinal v. Arias, 391 N.J. Super. 49 (App. Div.) (repeated appearances for same client are proper subjects for cross-examination)