217 A.3d 761
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2019Background
- Scott Rogow, a Paterson firefighter, retired on an accidental disability retirement allowance effective November 1, 2010, and began receiving benefits June 1, 2011.
- Rogow died August 28, 2012; his widow Lynne Rogow and two minor children received survivor accidental disability benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7(3).
- Approximately four years after Rogow’s death, Lynne requested the Board reclassify Rogow’s pension status from "accidental disability" to "line of duty death" to obtain enhanced survivor accidental death benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-10.
- The Division denied the request; the Board affirmed, concluding N.J.S.A. 43:16A-10 applies only when the member dies while in active service (i.e., not retired and not receiving a retirement allowance).
- Appellant argued the statute does not require death to occur during active service and relied on comparison to N.J.S.A. 43:16A-9 and certain agency decisions; the Board and court relied on plain statutory language, regulatory definitions, and legislative history.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding a member who has retired and is receiving PFRS retirement benefits at death is not eligible for accidental death benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-10.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PFRS member who retired on accidental disability and was receiving a retirement allowance at death is eligible for accidental death benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-10 | Rogow's widow: statute should be read to permit accidental death benefits if death is causally related to line-of-duty injury regardless of retirement timing; omission of timing language like in 43:16A-9 shows Legislature did not intend a timing requirement | Board: text of 43:16A-10 pays benefits "upon the death of a member in active service"; retirement terminates active service so a retiree receiving benefits is ineligible | Held for Board: plain statutory language and related definitions mean a retiree receiving a retirement allowance is not "in active service," so 43:16A-10 does not apply |
| Whether statutory context and comparison to 43:16A-9 create ambiguity supporting appellant's reading | Appellant: because 43:16A-10 lacks the timing/30-day language present in 43:16A-9(5)(b), only causal link matters | Board/Court: both 43:16A-9(1) and 43:16A-10(1) expressly condition benefits on death while "in active service"; 43:16A-9(5) addresses when a member is deemed active for certain provisions but does not override the plain requirement | Held for Board: no ambiguity; plain text controls and context/legislative history reinforce active-service requirement |
| Whether prior Board decisions (Lake, Estock) or agency practice support appellant | Appellant: prior agency decisions did not require death during active service and allegedly allow reclassification | Board: prior decisions were decided on different grounds (timeliness, causation) and do not negate statute's active-service requirement; other precedent supports Board's reading | Held for Board: prior cases cited by appellant do not compel a contrary result; cognate precedent and statutory scheme support Board's interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Russo v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen's Retirement System, 206 N.J. 14 (statutory interpretation of pension-board decisions; standard of review)
- McGovern v. Rutgers, 211 N.J. 94 (issues of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (courts enforce clear statutory language; avoid adding omitted qualifications)
- Klumb v. Board of Education, 199 N.J. 14 (treat cognate statutes consistently when construing pension laws)
- TAC Associates v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 202 N.J. 533 (use legislative history and plain meaning when statute ambiguous)