SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3195-16T1

JOYCE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent-Respondent.

_____________________________

Argued October 17, 2018 – Decided March 21, 2019

Before Judges Ostrer and Currier.

On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Public 

Employees' Retirement System, Department of 

Treasury, PERS No. 2-10-310844.

Janis A. Eisl argued the cause for appellant (Gaylord 

Popp, LLC, attorneys; Samuel M. Gaylord, on the 

brief).

Juliana C. DeAngelis, Deputy Attorney General, argued 

the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney 

General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-3195-16T1

Attorney General, of counsel; Juliana C. DeAngelis, on 

the brief).

PER CURIAM

Joyce Williams appeals from the final agency decision of the Public 

Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Board of Trustees that set May 1, 2016, 

as the start date of her service retirement benefits. Williams contends her 

benefits should have started on July 1, 2015. That was the date she sought 

ordinary disability retirement benefits in her initial June 2015 application. But, 

that application was cancelled after Williams failed to submit the required 

documentation. Applying our deferential standard of review to the Division's 

decisions, see, e.g. Thompson v. Bd. of Trs., Teachers' Pension and Annuity 

Fund, 449 N.J. Super. 478, 483-84 (App. Div. 2017), aff'd o.b., 233 N.J. 232 

(2018), we affirm.

I.

The record reflects the following facts. Williams submitted her 

application for ordinary disability retirement benefits in June 2015. She sought

a July 1, 2015 retirement date. She claimed she was unable to perform her 

clerical job with the Franklin Township Board of Education because of both 

physical and non-physical ailments. 
3

A-3195-16T1

However, in the months that followed, the Division repeatedly informed 

Williams that she failed to submit the required documentation of her disability. 

In a December 8, 2015 letter marked "3rd FINAL NOTICE," the Division noted 

that Williams's personal treating doctors stated she was not disabled.1 The 

Division informed her that she was required to submit "at least two medical 

reports, one by the member's personal or attending physicians along with 

medical documentation supporting [her] disability and the other in the form of 

either hospital records or a report from a second physician."2 The documentation 

was due within six months from her application. The Division further informed 

Williams, "If it is not received the retirement will be cancelled in 30 days, and 

the member must complete a new disability application for a future retirement 

date."3

 

1 The final agency decision states that the Division sent requests for 

documentation on June 9, July 9, and August 19, 2015 – however, only the 

August letter is included in the record. 

2 The Division quoted N.J.A.C. 17:4-6.1. However, that regulation is in the 

chapter on the Police and Firemen's Retirement System. We presume the 

Division meant to refer to N.J.A.C. 17:2-6.1, in the chapter on PERS. The 

regulation has since been amended, effective January 16, 2018. See 50 N.J.R. 

646(a). 

3

 The applicable PERS regulation stated, "If it is not received, the retirement 

will be cancelled and the member must complete a new disability application 
4

A-3195-16T1

Williams does not contend that she timely submitted the required 

documentation. Based on that failure, the Division closed her application in 

January 2016. 

Two months later, in a letter to the Division, Williams's attorney conceded 

Williams's "difficulties" in securing the necessary documentation from her 

physicians. He requested that Williams's "matter be converted to a Service 

Pension as of the date of her retirement which is July 1, 2015." The Division

declined the request.

Williams formally applied online for a service retirement in April 2016. 

As the system would not allow her to input a July 1, 2015 effective date, she 

applied for benefits effective May 1, 2016, but sent an email to the Division 

renewing her request for the July 1, 2015 date. The Division used the May 1, 

2016 effective date.

A series of correspondence followed, in which Williams requested the 

July 1, 2015 effective date and the Division continued to reject that request. 

Williams contended that her depression following family losses prevented her 

 

for a future retirement date." N.J.A.C. 17:2-6.1(e)(1) (2010), 42 N.J.R. 1612(b) 

(July 19, 2010) (emphasis added). 
5

A-3195-16T1

from complying with the Division's deadlines in 2015. She apparently submitted 

supporting documentation, which is not included in the record. The Division 

responded that once the disability application was closed, Williams was "no 

longer entitled to anything [she] designated on that application, including the 

effective date of retirement." The Division also informed Williams that she 

ultimately bore the responsibility for submitting the required documentation. 

The Board then denied Williams's request to maintain the July 1, 2015 date in a 

letter dated November 10, 2016.

Williams administratively appealed the Board's decision and requested a 

hearing before the Office of Administrative Law. The Board rejected the 

hearing request, finding there were no material issues of fact, and issued its final 

agency decision on February 16, 2017, affirming the Division. After Williams 

filed her notice of appeal with our court, we granted the Board's motion for a 

limited remand, to correct its decision, which the Board completed on March 

28, 2018.

II.

On appeal, Williams contends the Board abused its discretion in denying 

her request that her service retirement commence on July 1, 2015. We disagree. 
6

A-3195-16T1

Williams effectively concedes that no statutory or regulatory provision 

entitled her to the retroactive date. Indeed, the statutory regime provides 

otherwise. N.J.S.A. 43:15A-47A states that retirement shall commence 

"subsequent to the execution and filing" of an application. Likewise, the 

regulation then in effect provided that retirement applications must be 

completed "before the requested date of retirement." N.J.A.C. 17:2-6.1(a) 

(2010), 42 N.J.R. 1612(b) (July 19, 2010). The application for service 

retirement was submitted in April 2016, after the requested retirement date. Nor 

was the Board required to utilize the date Williams originally requested for 

starting an ordinary disability pension. Her application was cancelled, pursuant 

to N.J.A.C. 17:2-6.1(e)(1) (2010), 42 N.J.R. 1612(b) (July 19, 2010).

Williams contends that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Board was not 

only empowered, but obliged, to grant her a July 1, 2015 start date for her service 

pension. However, she offers no authority for the proposition that the Board 

was empowered, let alone obliged, to grant Williams a retroactive start date, 

notwithstanding the clear statutory and regulatory commands. The pension 

statutes are construed liberally to further their remedial purpose. Klumb v. Bd. 

of Educ. of Manalapan-Englishtown Reg'l High Sch. Dist., 199 N.J. 14, 34 

(2009). But, "an employee has only such rights and benefits as are based upon 
7

A-3195-16T1

and within the scope of the provisions of the statute." Francois v. Bd. of Trs., 

Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys., 415 N.J. Super. 335, 349 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting Casale 

v. Pension Comm'n of the Emp. Ret. Sys. of Newark, 78 N.J. Super. 38, 40 (Law 

Div. 1963)). The provisions governing the effective date of a pension are plain 

on their face.

We recognize that modern notions of due process may temper rigid 

application of time limitations that may impact a person's property interests in 

governmental benefits. See Rivera v. Bd. of Review, 127 N.J. 578, 585-86, 591 

(1992) (holding that due process required a good cause exception to allow late 

appeals from unemployment compensation decisions). In light of Rivera, the 

Division of Unemployment adopted regulations formally authorizing a claimant 

to file a late appeal upon a showing of good cause. See N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.7; 

N.J.A.C. 12:20-3.1(i). 

However, we need not define here an exception to the time limitations for 

submitting supporting documentation of a disability pension application. 

Williams did not appeal the denial of her disability pension application. 

Furthermore, notwithstanding her family tragedies, Williams has not established 

that she was excused from procuring the required documentation during the sixmonth period. 
8

A-3195-16T1

To the extent not addressed, Williams's remaining points lack sufficient 

merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-2(e)(1) (E). 

Affirmed.