SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2543-15T1

TARA SASSAMAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT

SYSTEM,

Respondent-Respondent.

____________________________________________

Submitted February 16, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.

On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the 

Public Employees' Retirement System, Docket 

No. PERS #2-10-281978.

Springstead & Maurice, attorneys for 

appellant (Harold N. Springstead, on the 

brief).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, 

attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jeff 

S. Ignatowitz, Deputy Attorney General, on 

the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

August 9, 2017
A-2543-15T1

2

Petitioner Tara Sassaman appeals from the January 21, 2016 

final decision of respondent, the Board of Trustees of the 

Public Employees' Retirement System (Board), which adopted the 

December 3, 2015 decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

affirming the Board's denial of petitioner's application for 

accidental disability retirement benefits. We affirm.

The salient facts are as follows. In 2012, the then sixtyone-year-old petitioner was employed as a teacher's assistant

for autistic children for the Bergen County Board of Special 

Services. Her job duties included assisting students with 

disabilities and behavioral problems. In July 2012, a student 

pushed petitioner to the floor. She reported her right shoulder 

felt very painful immediately after she hit the floor. She 

treated the shoulder with ice but, by the following day, she was 

unable to move her right arm. 

Petitioner went to the "workmen's compensation clinic" for 

treatment. An x-ray of her shoulder was unremarkable, but a 

subsequent MRI revealed a torn rotator cuff in that shoulder, 

which was surgically repaired in October 2012. Notwithstanding, 

petitioner claimed she was unable to return to her job because 

her ability to move her arm was restricted. She asserted that, 

but for the injury, she would have continued working. 
A-2543-15T1

3

Petitioner applied for but the Board denied her accidental 

disability retirement benefits. The Board did approve her 

application for ordinary disability retirement, however, finding 

she was totally and permanently disabled.1 Petitioner appealed

the Board's determination, and the matter was referred to the 

Office of Administrative Law for a hearing before an ALJ.

During the hearing before the ALJ, petitioner's treating 

orthopedist, Frank Alberta, M.D., testified he discovered a full 

thickness tear in the rotator cuff during surgery, as well as a 

fair amount of degeneration within the tendon itself. He stated 

the tear probably existed before the fall, noting tears are 

common for individuals of petitioner's age and may exist without 

causing a patient any symptoms. However, he opined the tear was 

smaller before the fall, and that it was the fall that caused 

the full tear, which in turn was a substantial cause of her 

ultimate disability. 

The Board's orthopedist, Richard Rosa, M.D., testified 

that, "without a doubt," the full thickness tear existed before 

the fall. He noted the MRI revealed atrophy in the rotator cuff

and medial retraction of the tendon. If there had been an acute 

 

1 An accidental disability pension provides approximately twothirds of a member's annual compensation in benefits. N.J.S.A.

43:16A-7(2)(b). An ordinary disability retirement allowance 

awards approximately forty percent of the member's final 

compensation. N.J.S.A. 43:16A-6(2)(b).
A-2543-15T1

4

tear at the time of the fall, there would not have been any 

retraction of the tendon; instead, the tendon would have been in 

position. He commented one can have a complete tear and not 

have any symptoms for a long period of time, although eventually 

one will experience symptoms. He opined the full tear was the 

result of chronic wear and tear of the rotator cuff over the 

years, and the fall merely caused the tear to increase "a little 

bit," which was what caused her pain. 

The ALJ credited Dr. Rosa's testimony and found 

petitioner's disability was not caused by the subject incident. 

The Board in turn adopted the ALJ's recommendation to deny 

petitioner accidental disability retirement benefits.

On appeal, petitioner presents the following arguments for 

our consideration:

POINT I: THE ALJ AND THE BOARD DEMONSTRATED 

A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE 

CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD TO BE APPLIED TO 

PETITIONER'S PROOFS WHICH RENDER THOSE 

DECISIONS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE. 

POINT II: PETITIONER HAS SUSTAINED HER 

BURDEN OF PROOF THAT HER SHOULDER INJURY WAS 

A SIGNIFICANT OR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTING 

CAUSE OF HER DISABILITY EVEN IF IT WAS 

COMBINED WITH A PRIOR UNDERLYING CONDITION. 

Our review of the Board's decision is limited. Russo v. 

Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 

(2011). We will sustain the Board's decision "unless there is a 
A-2543-15T1

5

clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, 

or that it lacks fair support in the record." Ibid. (quoting In 

re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007)). It is not our place to 

second-guess or substitute our judgment for that of the agency 

and, therefore, we do not "engage in an independent assessment 

of the evidence as if [we] were the court of first instance."

In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting State v. 

Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)). We are not, however, in any 

way "bound by the agency's . . . determination of a strictly 

legal issue." Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85, 

93 (1973). 

Applying these standards, we discern no reason to disturb 

the Board's decision. The ALJ's finding petitioner's fall was 

not the direct cause of her disability, subsequently adopted by 

the Board, is supported by substantial credible evidence in the 

record. 

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:15A-43, a member of the Public 

Employees' Retirement System may be retired on an accidental 

disability pension if the member is "permanently and totally 

disabled as a direct result of a traumatic event occurring 

during and as a result of the performance of his regular or 

assigned duties." In Richardson v. Board of Trustees, the Court 
A-2543-15T1

6

held in order to qualify for accidental disability retirement 

benefits, a member of the retirement system must establish: 

1. that he is permanently and totally 

disabled;

2. as a direct result of a traumatic event 

that is

a. identifiable as to time and 

place,

b. undesigned and unexpected, and

c. caused by a circumstance 

external to the member (not the 

result of pre-existing disease 

that is aggravated or accelerated 

by the work);

3. that the traumatic event occurred during 

and as a result of the member's regular or 

assigned duties;

4. that the disability was not the result of 

the member's willful negligence; an[d]

5. that the member is mentally or physically 

incapacitated from performing his usual or 

any other duty.

[Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., 192 N.J. 189,

212-13 (2007).]

The principal dispute on appeal is the application of 2c 

listed above. The Court has recognized: 

[A]n accidental disability in some 

circumstances may arise even though an 

employee is afflicted with an underlying 

physical disease bearing causally upon the 

resulting disability. In such cases, the 

traumatic event need not be the sole or 
A-2543-15T1

7

exclusive cause of the disability. As long 

as the traumatic event is the direct cause, 

i.e., the essential significant or 

substantial contributing cause of the 

disability, it is sufficient to satisfy the 

statutory standard of an accidental 

disability even though it acts in 

combination with an underlying physical 

disease.

[Gerba v. Bd. of Trs., 83 N.J. 174, 187 

(third emphasis added).]

The member bears the burden of establishing a direct connection 

between a work-related injury and the claimed disability by a 

preponderance of the evidence supported by competent medical 

evidence. Russo v. Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 62 N.J.

142, 147 (1973). 

Here, petitioner failed to meet that burden. She provided 

insufficient evidence the fall was the substantial contributing 

cause of her disability. The ALJ found credible Dr. Rosa's 

testimony the tear in petitioner's rotator cuff was complete 

before the fall, and it is that tear which is the cause of her 

disability. The tear was aggravated as a result of the incident 

"by a little bit" and produced pain, but the fall itself did not

cause the complete tear and resultant disability. Because the 

ALJ's determination is founded upon sufficient credible 

evidence, the agency decision must be sustained. Gerba, supra, 

83 N.J. at 189.
A-2543-15T1

8

Affirmed.