IRMA PINTO VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM(BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM), A-3263-15T4

Pinto, a Stratford Board of Education custodian hired in 2004, was injured at work on April 26, 2011 while using the school elevator during a day when custodians were waxing floors.
Waxing required multiple coats and left floors (including the elevator floor and hallway entrance) wet and unsafe to walk on until dry.
Supervisors Kenneth Pressley and custodian Carl DiOrio testified they twice warned Pinto not to use the elevator or walk through the freshly waxed hallway and directed her to use a back stairwell as a safe alternative.
Pinto acknowledged using the elevator several times that day and knowing waxing occurred, but denied being told not to use the elevator and said she did not notice signs of cleaning before she fell.
An ALJ credited Pressley and DiOrio over Pinto, found Pinto acted with "willful negligence" (reckless indifference to safety), and concluded that bar under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7 precluded accidental disability pension; the Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and denied accidental disability but granted ordinary disability retirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pinto’s fall was caused by "willful negligence" (reckless indifference) barring accidental disability pension	Pinto argued the Board’s factual finding lacked evidentiary support and the risk/danger was not sufficiently serious to rise to reckless indifference	Board (and ALJ) argued Pinto was repeatedly warned, had a safe alternative (stairwell), knew waxing practices, yet chose to use the elevator into wet wax, demonstrating willful negligence	Court affirmed: substantial evidence supported ALJ/Board finding of willful negligence; denial of accidental disability was not arbitrary or unreasonable

In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (discussing scope of appellate review of administrative decisions)
City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council, Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 82 N.J. 530 (deference to agency exercise of statutory responsibilities)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Hough, 210 N.J. 187 (deference to agency interpretation of its regulations)
Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163 (deference to agency factual findings)
In re Musick, 143 N.J. 206 (standard for disturbing agency determinations)
Schick v. Ferolito, 167 N.J. 7 (contrast on assessing risk in negligence contexts)
G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (equating willful/wanton misconduct with reckless disregard for safety)
Fielder v. Stonack, 141 N.J. 101 (term meaning depends on context; seriousness of misconduct controls)