ELAINE GECHTMAN VS. TEACHERS' PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND (BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TEACHERS' PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND) ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1954-16T3
    ELAINE GECHTMAN,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    TEACHERS' PENSION AND ANNUITY
    FUND,
    Respondent-Respondent.
    ________________________________
    Submitted June 19, 2018 - Decided July 27, 2018
    Before Judges Simonelli and Koblitz.
    On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the
    Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund, TPAF No.
    02013-2015N.
    Bergman and Barrett, attorneys for appellant
    (Michael T. Barrett, of counsel and on the
    brief).
    Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
    for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer,
    Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Robert
    S. Garrison, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, on
    the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Elaine Gechtman appeals from the December 2, 2016 final
    determination of the Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Pension
    and Annuity Fund (TPAF) rejecting the Administrative Law Judge's
    (ALJ) initial decision that Gechtman was totally and permanently
    disabled and therefore eligible for ordinary disability retirement
    benefits.   We affirm.
    Gechtman was first employed in October 2000, and retired on
    July 1, 2014, after applying in May for a disability pension.            On
    December 5, 2014, the Board of TPAF initially found Gechtman, a
    former   Elizabeth   elementary   school   teacher   who   retired   after
    almost fifteen years of work, was not totally and permanently
    disabled from the performance of her regular and assigned duties,
    and was therefore ineligible for a disability retirement. N.J.S.A.
    18A:66-39(b).   She appealed, and the matter was transferred to the
    Office of Administrative Law where an ALJ conducted three days of
    hearings.   A delay in receiving transcripts led to the ALJ finally
    requiring post-hearing submissions without the transcripts, four
    months after the close of the hearing.
    The ALJ found that Gechtman, then sixty-seven years old, had
    worked as an "itinerant teacher, a position that was akin to a
    floater and took her to different classrooms and buildings."           The
    ALJ found Gechtman was "constantly [] up and standing." She "would
    often get on the floor" with the younger students and "involved
    herself physically in teaching her students."        Gechtman testified
    that she had worked in the same building the last few years, where
    2                             A-1954-16T3
    she had to climb stairs often when the elevator was broken, which
    was extremely hard for her to do.
    When    she   filed    her   ordinary    disability   retirement
    application, Gechtman stated she suffered from1
    Achilles bursitis/tendinitis and lumbar and
    back problems which includes having problems
    walking with stairs and bending, carrying
    thing in front of me.
    A student swinging a backpack as I was walking
    down the stairs the backpack went under my
    foot and flipped me over the rest of the stairs
    and outside the building.       I was heading
    towards the right and did not want to hurt the
    student I swung my body to the left and another
    student was there and I swung my body to the
    middle and ended up falling onto cement and
    ended up at the doctors.
    Gechtman testified this accident occurred in October 2005.
    She returned to work about a month later, although her physical
    condition continued to deteriorate.     Gechtman also submitted forms
    from two treating doctors, a pain management specialist and Dr.
    Walter Pedowitz, her treating orthopedic surgeon for the past ten
    years, attesting to her inability to perform her duties.            Dr.
    Pedowitz stated in his certification that Gechtman suffered from
    "spinal stenosis," and had physical symptoms of "weak legs,"
    "spasms and difficulty walking."      The ALJ found that not only was
    it "difficult for Gechtman to . . . do her job," but that at home
    1
    We repeat the statement exactly as written, except that it was
    submitted in capital letters.
    3                           A-1954-16T3
    she could not put on socks, climb stairs, wash laundry or dishes
    or clean her own home.        She could only drive a car for about
    twenty-five minutes at a time.
    Dr. David Weiss, Gechtman's testifying expert, conducted his
    own examination, commenting on the disc bulges and surgery done
    by   Gechtman's    treating   doctor.    His   examination   revealed
    significant orthopedic difficulties and he commented that Gechtman
    utilized a cane.     He found that she is "unable to engage in her
    job related functions."       He described those functions in his
    report, stating:     "This job requires her to perform repetitive
    bending with pre-school children, prolonged standing, going up and
    down stairs, [and] getting the children out safely for fire
    drills."
    The ALJ found Dr. Weiss, who was qualified as an expert in
    orthopedic medicine, more credible than the independent medical
    examiner selected by the Board, Dr. Arnold Berman, finding that
    "Berman examined an apparently very different Gechtman than any
    other physician who examined her before or after him."       After a
    twenty-five to thirty minute physical examination, Berman found
    no evidence of meniscal tears, although Gechtman had an operation
    to repair a torn meniscus just one month after the examination.
    When this information was provided to Dr. Berman, it did not change
    his opinion.
    4                         A-1954-16T3
    The ALJ found that Gechtman was "unable to perform the duties
    and responsibilities of her general area of employment, which is
    as a classroom teacher.       Her ability to perform sedentary work is
    clearly irrelevant for purposes of determining her eligibility for
    a disability retirement pension, because her ordinary employment
    is not sedentary."     The ALJ reversed the Board's initial decision.
    The Board pointed out that, unlike with lay witnesses, it
    need not defer to the ALJ on the credibility of expert witnesses.
    ZRB, LLC v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 
    403 N.J. Super. 531
    , 561
    (App. Div. 2008); see N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) (allowing the Board
    to reject an ALJ's credibility findings with regard to a lay
    witness   only   if   those   findings   are   arbitrary,   capricious   or
    unreasonable or unsupported by sufficient credible evidence).
    The Board rejected the ALJ's credibility findings with regard
    to the experts, determining the ALJ rejected Dr. Berman's findings
    with insufficient explanation.       The Board believed the ALJ should
    have weighed the different credentials of the two experts as Dr.
    Berman was a board-certified orthopedist while Dr. Weiss was a
    doctor of osteopathy who was not a board-certified orthopedist.
    Most importantly, the Board found that the ALJ found only that
    Gechtman could not perform the duties of her actual job, rather
    than the job for which she was hired.
    5                            A-1954-16T3
    Our review of administrative agency action is limited.                        We
    generally        "afford       substantial       deference     to    an     agency's
    interpretation of a statute that the agency is charged with
    enforcing."       Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., 
    192 N.J. 189
    , 196 (2007).
    "Such deference has been specifically extended to state agencies
    that administer pension statutes" because "'a state agency brings
    experience and specialized knowledge to its task of administering
    and   regulating        a    legislative    enactment      within   its     field   of
    expertise.'"       Piatt v. Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 
    443 N.J. Super. 80
    , 99 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting In re Election Law Enf't
    Comm'n Advisory Op. No. 01-2008, 
    201 N.J. 254
    , 262 (2010)).                         We
    are not, however, "bound by the agency's interpretation of a
    statute     or    its       determination       of   a   strictly   legal    issue."
    Richardson, 
    192 N.J. at 196
     (quoting In re Taylor, 
    158 N.J. 644
    ,
    658 (1999)).
    The burden of proof of ordinary disability lies with the
    employee.    Bueno v. Bd. of Trs. Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund,
    
    404 N.J. Super. 119
    , 126 (App. Div. 2008), certif. denied, 
    199 N.J. 540
     (2009).             The employee "must establish incapacity to
    perform duties in the general area of [her] ordinary employment
    rather than merely showing inability to perform the specific job
    for which [she] was hired."            Skulski v. Nolan, 
    68 N.J. 179
    , 205-
    06 (1975).
    6                                A-1954-16T3
    The duties of a classroom teacher are defined as follows:
    To assist students to fulfill their potential
    for intellectual, emotional, physical and
    psychological growth, and to provide them with
    the knowledge and skills essential for full
    participation as responsible citizens.
    No physical requirements are included in this job description.           As
    the ALJ noted, the description tells what should be done, but not
    how.    Presumably, the job could be performed by an employee who
    utilizes a wheelchair to ambulate.         Although Gechtman performed
    her particular job with significant physical effort, she did not
    demonstrate that standing for long periods of time, climbing
    stairs, sitting on the floor and carrying things were necessary
    to teach young children in other settings.
    We note that people in their mid-sixties frequently have
    physical limitations such as those experienced by Gechtman.             The
    Board has the obligation to safeguard pension resources.             In re
    Town of Harrison, 
    440 N.J. Super. 268
    , 300 (App. Div. 2015).
    We must affirm an administrative decision even if we might
    have decided differently.       Campbell v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 
    169 N.J. 579
    , 587 (2001).      The Board determined, in essence, that no
    particular physical strength or mobility was required to perform
    the    kindergarten   through   eighth-grade    teaching   job.        Thus,
    regardless    of   the   derivation   of   Gechtman's   injury,   or    the
    7                           A-1954-16T3
    credibility of the experts, she is not disabled.   We defer to the
    Board's expertise.
    Affirmed.
    8                          A-1954-16T3