SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4564-18T3

ROBERT BENDER, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF 

NORTH BERGEN, 

Respondent-Respondent.

____________________________

Argued November 18, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Gilson and Moynihan.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Labor

and Workforce Development, Division of Workers' 

Compensation, Claim Petition No. 2007-32225.

Donald F. Burke, Jr. argued the cause for appellant

(Law Office of Donald F. Burke, attorneys; Donald F. 

Burke and Donald F. Burke, Jr., on the briefs).

Ryan J. Gaffney argued the cause for respondent 

(Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, 

attorneys; Cindy Nan Vogelman, of counsel and on the 

brief, Qing H. Guo, on the brief). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 24, 2020
2

A-4564-18T3

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Robert Bender was a police officer with the Township of North 

Bergen from 1979 until his retirement in 2004. On October 4, 2007, petitioner 

filed an employee's claim petition with the Division of Workers' Compensation. 

We previously reviewed the Worker's Compensation judge's order entering 

judgment in favor of the Township, after a three-day trial, dismissing petitioner's 

psychiatric and orthopedic occupational claims. Bender v. Twp. of North 

Bergen, No. A-1988-15 (App. Div. Aug. 25, 2017), certif. denied, 232 N.J. 379 

(2017). We affirmed the judge's decision that the petition claiming psychiatric 

occupational disease was not filed within two years of the date petitioner knew 

the nature of the disability and its relation to his employment. Id. at 9. But we 

were "unable to determine from a reading of the decision whether or on what 

basis the judge decided the compensability of the orthopedic injuries claim." Id.

at 12. Specifically, we noted the decision did not resolve the conflict between 

the documentation of petitioner's orthopedic injuries during the course of his 

employment and his contention that those injuries were "insidiously 

progressive" and "did not manifest themselves until less than two years before 

the filing of his claim petition in 2007." Ibid. On remand, we directed the 

compensation judge to "make particularized findings and determine whether 
3

A-4564-18T3

petitioner has filed his claim regarding his orthopedic injuries within the 

appropriate statute of limitations." Id. at 13. 

Petitioner now appeals from an order following the remand dismissing his 

claim petition "for failure to sustain the burden of proof." Our scope of review 

is limited to "'whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on 

sufficient credible evidence present in the record,' considering 'the proofs as a 

whole,' with due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to 

judge of their credibility." Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)

(quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)); see also Lindquist v. Jersey 

City Fire Dep't, 175 N.J. 244, 262 (2003). We defer to the judge's factual 

findings and legal determination because we do not discern they were 

"'manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with competent relevant and 

reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice,'" Lindquist, 

175 N.J. at 262 (quoting Perez v. Monmouth Cable Vision, 278 N.J. Super. 275, 

282 (App. Div. 1994)), and affirm. 

Petitioner contends he did not realize until 2007 that his orthopedic 

injuries—resulting in surgery to his lumbar and cervical spine, right knee and 

left shoulder—resulted from "numerous falls, motor vehicle accidents, . . . 

lifting stretchers" and fights during his tenure as a police officer. Petitioner
4

A-4564-18T3

returned to work after each injury, including three for which he filed claim 

petitions and received workers' compensation benefits; he testified at trial his 

residual condition after each injury "was tolerable. You never heal completely 

from those things, but it's tolerable. You can live with it. You heal the best you 

can." 

He also testified he had pain in his "right knee for the longest time, for 

almost a year" before he "decided to go [have it checked]" in 2007; had no

problem with his left shoulder until after he retired and did not seek treatment 

until after he filed his 2007 claim petition; and did not have problems with his 

neck or back until after he retired.

In his merits brief, petitioner argues the judge 1) failed to follow our 

remand instructions when he "sua sponte dismissed the petition based on his 

conclusion . . . that [petitioner's medical expert,] Dr. [Floyd] Krengel's report 

set forth a net opinion" and 2) "violated The Rules of the Division of Workers' 

Compensation . . . regarding 'Conduct of [f]ormal hearings [that] directs the 

order of proofs at trial which orders the testimony of petitioner before testimony 

of petitioner's medical experts and, thereafter ruling on [dispositive] motions." 

We are not persuaded by either argument.
5

A-4564-18T3

Contrary to petitioner's argument that the judge failed to follow our 

remand instructions, the judge did exactly that when he reviewed the proofs 

adduced at trial. At the remand hearing, the judge set forth the purpose of the 

hearing and deferred discussion on motions the parties filed after remand:

1

This matter is on remand from the [a]ppellate [c]ourt.

The issue before the [c]ourt is whether petitioner

demonstrated orthopedic claims. A request did not 

manifest themselves until greater than two years 

before[,] after the filing of the claim or after the 

petitioner retired and two years before the filing of the 

claim petition. Post remand, the parties have filed 

various motions which will be discussed later. Do you 

want to be heard or do you want to submit on the 

documents? 

 

Petitioner's counsel offered to answer any of the judge's questions with regard 

to the motions and the Township's counsel submitted on the documents. 

The judge then recounted the arguments made in petitioner's brief, 

reprised on appeal, that his injuries did not manifest until 2006 and 2007. He 

1

 The Township filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution to which 

petitioner filed opposition. Cross-motions relating to payment for medical costs 

were also filed. Petitioner has not appealed the judge's rulings, and they are not 

directly germane to any issue on appeal. The issue raised for the first time in 

petitioner's reply brief—asking that we remand the medical-payment issue—is 

not properly before us. Bacon v. New Jersey State Dept. of Ed., 443 N.J. Super. 

24, 38 (App. Div. 2015) (noting this court "generally decline[s] to consider 

arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief").
6

A-4564-18T3

also reviewed Dr. Krengel's August 2013 certification and June 18, 2013 report

that were attached to petitioner's motion papers.

In rendering his oral opinion, the judge recognized our Supreme Court's 

ruling 

that in the limited class of cases in which an unexpected 

traumatic event occurs and the injury it generates is 

latent or insidiously progressive, an accident for 

workers' compensation filing purposes has not taken 

place until the signs and symptoms are such that they 

would alert a reasonable person that he had sustained a 

compensable injury.

[Brunell v. Wildwood Crest Police Dep't., 176 N.J. 225, 

254 (2003).]

In Brunell, the Court held the statutory requirements that an injured worker 

"must give notice to the employer within ninety days . . . 'of an injury,' N.J.S.A. 

34:15-17, and must file a claim petition within two years of the date the

'accident' occurred, N.J.S.A. 34:15-51," 176 N.J. at 250, "do not begin to run 

until the worker is, or reasonably should be, aware that he has sustained a 

compensable injury," id. at 252. 

Based on the proofs, including petitioner's testimony that after he retired 

he "passed out a couple of times," one time "hurt[ing himself] more," and Dr. 

Krengel's net opinion that his cervical and lumbar injuries were causally related 

to petitioner's occupational exposure, the judge concluded, from a "common[-
7

A-4564-18T3

]sense point of view," petitioner's claim "does not fall into the limited class of 

cases which I expect a traumatic event occurred and the injury [degenerately] or

consequently progresses, which is work-related, but . . . petitioner was not 

alerted to same until the signs or symptoms appeared[.]" The judge deduced,

"[h]ad the orthopedic condition been related to the occupational exposure, then 

one would clearly expect some manifestation arising during the work exposure 

or within two years of the work exposure." Finding "a lack of nexus," the judge 

dismissed the orthopedic claims because there was "no meaningful showing of 

any insidious progression of an orthopedic disability[.]" 

The judge's conclusion is consistent with the applicable law. The Brunell

Court did "not . . . suggest a wholesale importation of the discovery rule that is 

a part of the occupational disease statute into all accidental injury cases." 176 

N.J. at 261. In holding "[l]ess latitude is afforded the worker who is injured in 

an unexpected accident[,]" and the worker "must act" when he or she knows 

"any compensable injury" is sustained, the Court limited the circumstances 

where a late filing would be excused by the discovery rule:

Notice and claim limitations in classic industrial 

accidents involving simultaneous traumatic event and 

injury will continue to be calculated from the date of 

the traumatic event. It is only in the narrow band of 

accident cases involving latency and insidious onset 

diseases that we think the Legislature would have
8

A-4564-18T3

intended the kind of leeway it developed to avoid a 

legitimately injured worker losing an occupational 

claim to be equally applicable to latent injury accidents.

Moreover, it should be noted that applying a 

discovery-type rule to that narrow class of accident 

cases will not result in the obliteration of the distinction 

between accidental injury and occupational disease for 

notice and filing purposes. It remains the fact that the 

accident calculation begins when the worker knows or 

should know he has incurred any compensable injury[.]

[Ibid.]

In setting forth the reasons why he concluded petitioner had not timely 

filed his claim petition and was thus barred, N.J.S.A. 34:15-41, the judge fully 

complied with our remand instructions. We did not mandate that the trial record 

be expanded. The judge, nevertheless, considered Dr. Krengel's certification 

and report even though it was not entered into evidence during trial, and Dr. 

Krengel did not testify at trial. The report was based on the doctor's review of

a report on August 2012 cervical MRI studies and a single physical examination 

in June 2013. The examination did not include petitioner's shoulder or knee,

and offered no explanation for the doctor's conclusion that petitioner's back 

injuries—both cervical and lumbar—were causally related to "occupational 

exposure." The doctor's failure to relate the injuries to specific incidents and to 

give the "why[s] and wherefore[s]" of his mere conclusion, rendered it a net 
9

A-4564-18T3

opinion. See Jimenez v. GNOC, Corp., 286 N.J. Super. 533, 540 (App. Div. 

1996); see also Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 54 (2015). The doctor's report 

stated petitioner "was examined for the sole purpose of determining 

impairment," perhaps explaining why he did not support his causal-relation

opinion. Whether or not a net opinion, the doctor's submission and other trial 

evidence did not establish that the late-filed petition should not be dismissed.

Petitioner's argument that the judge violated the order of proofs before 

ruling on dispositive motions is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion. 

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). The judge was explaining his ruling after the trial at which 

petitioner did not present a doctor's testimony. The remand hearing was not an 

opportunity to present additional testimony. There is no indication in the trial 

record, or in the record of the prior appeal, that at trial petitioner offered or was 

precluded from presenting testimony of any medical expert, including that of 

Dr. Krengel. Further, at no time did petitioner give any indication the doctor 

was present or that he wanted to offer his testimony.

Affirmed.