Case Name: RICHARD CIECWISZ, RESPONDENT, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1988-10-27
Citations: 113 N.J. 180
Docket Number: 
Parties: RICHARD CIECWISZ, RESPONDENT, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 180–192

Head Matter:
RICHARD CIECWISZ, RESPONDENT, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, APPELLANT.
Argued November 30, 1987
Decided October 27, 1988.
John J. Franzini, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause, for appellant (W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Michael R. Clancy, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel; Ellis I. Medoway, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Peter J. Farnsworth argued the cause, for respondent (Mad-nick, Milstein, Mason, Weber & Farnsworth, attorneys).

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
POLLOCK, J.
This case is controlled by our decision in the companion case of Maynard v. Board of Trustees, Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund, 113 N.J. 169 (1988), in which we held that a slip-and-fall accident is not a traumatic event entitling an injured employee to accidental disability benefits.
Claimant, Richard Ciecwisz, a corrections officer at Rahway State Prison, was permanently and totally disabled as the result of three work-related incidents. On February 9, 1979, he sustained a fractured left clavicle while breaking up a fight between two inmates. On June 2, 1981, he sustained a compressed fracture of a lumbar vertebra when he slipped and fell on some cooking oil spilled on the kitchen floor by two inmates. He again injured his back on May 7, 1983, while subduing an inmate who had "flipped out" in his cell. Ciecwisz filed a claim for accidental disability benefits.
The Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement System (the Board) concluded that he was permanently and totally disabled and granted him ordinary, but not accidental disability benefits. In reaching that result, the Board found that the 1981 incident was not a traumatic event and that although the 1983 incident was "traumatic," Ciecwisz's disability was not the direct result of that incident. On Ciecwisz's appeal, the matter was referred to an administrative law judge (ALT), who agreed, and the Board adopted the AU's report.
In an unreported decision, the Appellate Division agreed substantially with the Board, except that the court concluded that the 1981 slip-and-fall accident was a traumatic event that entitled Ciecwisz to accidental disability benefits. We disagree. As in Maynard, we conclude that a slip-and-fall accident does not entail "a great rush of force or uncontrollable power," Kane v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen's Retirement Sys., 100 N.J. 651, 663 (1985), and that claimant was not injured in a traumatic event that would entitle him to accidental disability benefits.
For the reasons set forth in Maynard, we believe that the proposal contained in Justice Stein's dissent does not comport with the legislative intent. 113 N.J. at 177. As we stated in Maynard, "[pjerhaps the Legislature should revisit this subject, but until it does, our duty is to apply the statute in accordance with the legislative intent." Ibid.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division, and reinstate the decision of the Board.