[brief] The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the “traumatic event” must be “undesigned and unexpected” (Aa15-Aa16, citing Richardson v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, 192 N.J. 189, 212-213 [2007]).  The ALJ rejected Petitioner’s argument that the circumstance of Petitioner having to go back to the truck to retrieve the long hose because the bookcase was blocking the basement doorway qualified as an undesigned and unexpected event (Aa18).  The ALJ stated in pertinent part:  “Here, there is no doubt that petitioner’s service at the scene were laudable and consistent with his training to save lives and property.  However, [...]’s disability did not result from an ‘unexpected external happening. ’  Rather petitioner became totally and permanently disabled while performing his usual and ordinary duties.  Moreover, petitioner’s argument fails because he has the burden to prove that he is totally and permanently disabled as a direct result of a traumatic event which is undesigned and unexpected. ” (Aa17).  [...] found that the alleged traumatic event was Petitioner’s accident as he was carrying the long hose to the basement (Aa19).  The issue was whether the traumatic event was undesigned and unexpected, and not the bookcase blocking the basement door (Aa19).  The ALJ stated:  “There is no evidence presented in this matter that ‘during the regular performance of [petitioner’s] job, an unexpected happening, not the result of pre-existing disease alone or in combination with the work, occurred. ’  Richardson, 192 N.J. at 214 (emphasis added).  Simply put, there was no ‘unexpected happening. ’  Petitioner stated that he was performing his job duties when he took out the long hose and fell while he was bringing the same to the fire fighters in the basement.  [...] admitted that this is part of his job duties and expected of a fire fighter at the scene (J-7).  Furthermore, [...] testified that as a fire fighter, he received training in the Academy, and later while a fire fighter, regarding the very same duties which he testified he performed on the date of the incident.  “While Richardson is clear that ‘the fact that a member is injured while performing his ordinary duties does not disqualify him from receiving accidental disability benefits,’ it is equally clear that some ‘unexpected happening’ must occur to meet the elements of the Richardson test.  Ibid.  Specifically, an ‘unexpected happening’ must occur to show that the incident that caused the injury was a traumatic event that is, among other things, undesigned and unexpected.  “For these reasons and as stated herein, I CONCLUDE that there is no evidence of ‘unexpected happening’ here.  Petitioner was employed as a fire fighter performing his required duties on September 22, 2017, when he twisted his left ankle while carrying a fire hose up a driveway.  “I agree with the Board’s finding that the event that caused petitioner’s disability was not undesigned and unexpected, and accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of presenting sufficient, competent, and credible evidence of facts essential to his claim to prove all the elements necessary to show eligibility for an accidental disability retirement allowance by a fair preponderance of the evidence. ”  (Aa19-Aa20)  [...] affirmed the Board’s determination to deny Petitioner’s application for AD (Aa21).  On September 16, 2022, the Board adopted the ALJ’s initial decision in its entirety (Aa23).  This appeal followed.