E.T. v. Board of Trustees, Etc., A-2122-23

E.T. was a police officer with the Cresskill Police Department and responded to a small plane crash in September 2015, where he encountered a smoking, fuel-leaking plane but did not witness the crash or extract the victims, both of whom survived.
Following the incident, E.T. experienced psychological problems, including anxiety, insomnia, alcohol abuse, and an eventual suicide attempt, resulting in his termination from police service.
E.T. applied for Accidental Disability Retirement (ADR) benefits, claiming permanent disability due to psychological trauma from the plane crash; his application was denied by the Police and Firemen's Retirement System Board (the Board).
The Board found E.T. was permanently disabled and qualified for ordinary disability retirement, but determined the incident did not meet the legal standard for ADR benefits since it was not a "direct personal experience of a terrifying or horror-inducing event."
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) affirmed the Board’s denial of ADR, finding the event did not rise to the requisite level of trauma under controlling precedents and aligning with the Board's interpretation of E.T.’s job duties and the facts.
E.T. appealed, arguing the Board misapplied the relevant legal standard, specifically the definition of "traumatic event" established in Richardson and Patterson.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether E.T.’s experience met the legal definition of a “traumatic event” (for ADR eligibility)	E.T.: His response to the dangerous plane crash was a traumatic event under case law.	Board: The event lacked the horror/ terror element—E.T. did not witness the crash, extract injured, or face immediate threat.	The court held the incident did not meet the required standard for a "traumatic event" for ADR.
Whether the psychological injury qualifies for ADR under the Patterson/Richardson standard	E.T.: PTSD and mental injury resulted from direct involvement in the crash scene.	Board: Psychological injury must stem from a direct, objectively terrifying event per the legal standard.	Court held E.T.'s mental injury did not originate from such an event, so ADR is not available.
Whether the Board properly considered E.T.’s training and job duties in its analysis	E.T.: The job description/training should not lessen the traumatic nature of the event.	Board: E.T.'s duties included responding to such incidents; event was within job expectations.	Court agreed with Board: duties/training are relevant to evaluating "traumatic event."
Whether the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable	E.T.: The denial was an error based on an incorrect application of the law.	Board: Decision supported by facts and precedent; record supports denial of ADR.	Court found no arbitrariness; affirmed Board's decision.

Richardson v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement System, 192 N.J. 189 (sets definition of "traumatic event" and standard for ADR)
Patterson v. Board of Trustees, State Police Retirement System, 194 N.J. 29 (establishes that qualifying mental injury must result from direct experience of a terrifying or horror-inducing event)
Russo v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen’s Retirement System, 206 N.J. 14 (scope and standard of review for agency pension decisions)
Mount v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen’s Retirement System, 233 N.J. 402 (clarifies "direct result" requirement for ADR)