SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0057-19T3

DAVID HARAK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

STATE POLICE RETIREMENT

SYSTEM,

Respondent-Respondent.

_____________________________

Argued October 13, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer.

On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the State 

Police Retirement System, SPRS No. 8-10-004739.

Samuel J. Halpern argued the cause for appellant.

Austin J. Edwards, Deputy Attorney General, argued 

the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney 

General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Austin J. Edwards, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 27, 2020
2

A-0057-19T3

Petitioner David Harak appeals from a July 24, 2019 final agency decision

of respondent Board of Trustees of the State Police Retirement System (Board),

denying his application for an accidental disability retirement pension. We 

affirm.

Harak became a State Trooper in 2001. In 2005, he began experiencing

back issues due to a fall in his home. In 2006, he underwent L-4 and L-5 lumbar 

disc replacement surgery. After that surgery, Harak returned to work without 

restriction, continued to perform his official duties without difficulty, and took 

prescription pain medication as needed. Due to Harak's lingering back pain, 

Harak went to see Dr. Andrew Casden, an orthopedic surgeon. In March 2007, 

Dr. Casden diagnosed a failed disc replacement from the 2006 surgery. As a 

result, Dr. Casden performed a lumbar laminectomy and spinal fusion surgery 

at the L-4 and L-5 levels. After the second surgery, Harak received physical 

therapy, returned to light duty, and then resumed full duty without restrictions. 

Harak continued taking prescription medication for muscle spasms and back 

pain.

On June 27, 2010, Harak was involved in an on-duty accident in his police 

vehicle and he went to the hospital complaining of back pain. In September 

2010, Dr. Casden performed a third surgery for a failed spinal fusion at the L-4 
3

A-0057-19T3

and L-5 levels. Harak never returned to full time duty after the 2010 surgery. 

On June 11, 2015, he filed an application for receipt of accidental disability 

retirement benefits, citing neck pain radiating into his wrists and back pain 

radiating into his legs as a result of the 2010 accident.

On March 22, 2016, the Board denied Harak's request for accidental 

disability retirement benefits but awarded him ordinary disability retirement 

benefits. The Board found the 2010 motor vehicle accident was a traumatic 

event and Harak was permanently and totally disabled for duty as a State 

Trooper. However, the Board determined Harak's disability was not the direct 

result of the 2010 accident but rather a pre-existing condition standing alone, or 

a pre-existing condition aggravated or accelerated by work effort.

Harak appealed the Board's denial, and the matter was transferred to the 

Office of Administrative Law and assigned to an administrative law judge (ALJ)

for a hearing. At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Harak, Dr. Casden, 

and the Board's expert in orthopedic surgery, Dr. Jeffery Lakin. 

In a written decision, the ALJ summarized the testimony of the witnesses. 

Dr. Casden, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed two of Harak's 

back surgeries. Dr. Casden started treating Harak in 2007, after his first back 

surgery. Dr. Casden performed the second back surgery in 2007 and continued 
4

A-0057-19T3

to see Harak routinely thereafter. After the motor vehicle accident in 2010, Dr. 

Casden removed the prior hardware in Harak's back and performed a spinal 

fusion at the L-4 and L-5 levels. After the third lumbar surgery, Dr. Casden 

opined Harak could no longer perform the duties of a State Trooper. In his 

written report submitted as evidence during the hearing, Dr. Casden 

acknowledged the 2010 motor vehicle accident aggravated a pre-existing injury 

"but that it was the essential cause of the disability [because Harak] was working 

full duty prior to the accident." 

Harak was examined by the Board's expert, Dr. Lakin, in January 2016. 

Dr. Lakin reviewed Harak's medical history and performed a physical 

examination. Based on petitioner's medical history and physical examination, 

Dr. Lakin concluded Harak was totally and permanently disabled due to a back 

injury, which was not a direct result of any traumatic event, but rather an 

aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

Based on the testimony and written evidence, the ALJ concluded Harak 

failed to meet the "burden of establishing by a preponderance of the credible 

evidence that the June 27, 2010, accident was the cause of the total and 

permanent disability." She also made credibility determinations regarding the 

experts' testimony. The ALJ noted "the two expert witnesses offered differing 
5

A-0057-19T3

views as to whether petitioner's disability [was] the direct result of the June 27, 

2010 accident." According to the ALJ, both experts "present[ed] their opinion 

to an acceptable degree of medical certainty, and based their opinion on a 

physical examination, a review of history and of medical records, and measured 

their findings against petitioner's job requirements." 

On balance, the ALJ accorded greater weight to the testimony of the 

Board's expert and found his opinion more persuasive. She found "Dr. Lakin 

offered clear, concise and detailed testimony and demonstrated impressive 

knowledge in the area." Further, the ALJ concluded Dr. Lakin's opinion "was 

consistent with the other medical reports and objective findings," and he 

provided a "detailed tying of petitioner's condition" to a pre-existing medical 

condition aggravated by the 2010 accident. In deeming Dr. Lakin's testimony 

more credible, and applying well-settled case law, the ALJ determined "the 

work-related accident may have aggravated or accelerated [Harak's] condition, 

but the accident was not the essential significant or substantial contributing 

cause of [his] inability to perform his regular and assigned duties." The ALJ 

concluded "petitioner's disability was not a direct result of the alleged traumatic 

events and was a result of a pre-existing condition," rendering Harak ineligible 

for accidental disability retirement benefits. 
6

A-0057-19T3

After the ALJ issued her decision, Harak filed exceptions, relying on Dr. 

Casden's expert opinion as his treating doctor and the fact that Harak was able 

to perform his duties as a State Trooper without limitation prior to the 2010 

accident. The Board rejected Harak's exceptions and issued a final decision, 

affirming the ALJ's determination that Harak's disability was the result of a 

preexisting condition and not the subject accident.

On appeal, Harak argues the Board's determination was arbitrary, 

capricious, and unreasonable. He contends the Board erred in failing to give 

more weight to the testimony of his treating physician than the Board's expert 

doctor. We disagree. 

Our review of an agency's decision is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 

182, 194 (2011); Messick v. Bd. of Review, 420 N.J. Super. 321, 324 (App. Div. 

2011). An agency determination should not be reversed "unless it is arbitrary, 

capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence 

in the record as a whole." Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014) (quoting 

Prado v. State, 186 N.J. 413, 427 (2006)). However, we review an agency's 

legal interpretations de novo. Id. at 172. "Generally, courts afford substantial 

deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute that the agency is charged 
7

A-0057-19T3

with enforcing." Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192 

N.J. 189, 196 (2007).

N.J.S.A. 53:5A-10(a) governs the award of accidental disability 

retirement benefits for members of the State Police. To obtain such benefits, a 

petitioner must prove he or she "is permanently and totally disabled as a . . . 

result of the performance of his [or her] duties . . . ." Richardson, 192 N.J. at 

195. In Gerba v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 83 N.J. 174 (1980), our 

Supreme Court held that to qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits, 

it need not be shown that the traumatic event is the "sole or exclusive cause of 

the disability," but that the alleged traumatic event is "the direct cause, i.e., the 

essential significant or substantial contributing cause of the disability . . . ." Id.

at 187.

We are satisfied "that the evidence and the inferences to be drawn 

therefrom" support the Board's decision that Harak's back injury was not the 

direct result of the June 2010 accident, but from a pre-existing history of back 

injuries, back surgeries, and post-surgery back pain treated with prescription 

medication starting in 2005 when he fell in his home and continuing through the 

date of the motor vehicle accident. Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 

588 (1988). Having reviewed the record, the Board's decision that Harak was 
8

A-0057-19T3

not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits was not arbitrary, 

capricious, or unreasonable and was supported by sufficient credible evidence. 

We discern no basis to alter the Board's decision. See In Re Young, 202 N.J. 

50, 70-71 (2010).

Affirmed.