Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Juan M. Garabito v. Board of Trustees

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A-1431-24

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (15)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1431-24

JUAN M. GARABITO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
POLICE AND FIREMEN'S
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent-Respondent.

---

Submitted January 21, 2026 – Decided March 13, 2026

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Torregrossa-O'Connor.

On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Police and
Firemen's Retirement System, Department of the
Treasury, PFRS No. xx3419.

Limsky Mitolo, attorneys for appellant (Marcia J.
Mitolo, on the briefs).

Gregory Petzold, Executive Director of Legal Affairs,
attorney for respondent (Thomas R. Hower, Staff
Attorney, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
Petitioner Juan M. Garabito appeals from the January 15, 2025 final

agency decision of respondent Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's

Retirement System of New Jersey (Board), denying his application for

accidental disability benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7. After reviewing

the record in light of applicable law, we affirm.

I.

A. The Work-Related Injury and Initial Denial of Accidental Disability

On November 20, 2020, petitioner, a thirty-four-year-old Hudson County

Correctional Center (HCCC) corrections officer assigned to the mental health

unit, was attacked by an inmate. At the time of the incident, petitioner had been

a corrections officer for twelve years. He described his duties in the mental

health unit as including "escort[ing]," "feed[ing]," and "distribut[ing]

medication with the nurse and just observ[ing to] make sure there's no

altercations." The attack occurred while petitioner "was removing inmate food

trays from inmate cells after breakfast." Petitioner approached a particular cell,

when the inmate "attacked [him] with [a] food tray" leading to "a physical

struggle" on the floor. Petitioner reported immediately "experien[c]ing pain in

[his] left shoulder." He received surgery in February 2021 and was later cleared

A-1431-24
2
for light duty, but petitioner continued to report significant difficulties

completing household tasks such as lifting and carrying small objects.

In late 2021, petitioner applied for accidental disability benefits after his

"doctor determine[d] that [he] c[ould] only perform light[ ]duty level work," and

"[his] employer w[ould] not accommodate [him] with a permanent light duty

position." The Board denied petitioner's request for accidental disability

benefits, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7, but granted him ordinary disability

benefits by letter dated October 18, 2022. Despite finding petitioner had met all

other requirements to receive accidental disability benefits, 1 the Board advised

1
The Board summarized its findings, advising petitioner:

The Board determined that you are totally and
permanently disabled from the performance of your
regular and assigned job duties.
Further, the Board found that you are physically
or mentally incapacitated from the performance of your
usual or other duties that your employer is willing to
offer.

The documentation indicates that the event that
caused your reported disability is identifiable as to time
and place.

The Board found that the event that caused your
reported disability is undesigned and unexpected.

A-1431-24
3
it determined, "Although the event [wa]s caused by an external circumstance,

the medical documentation provided indicate[d] that [petitioner's] reported

disability [wa]s the result of a pre-existing disease alone or a pre-existing

disease that is aggravated or accelerated by the work effort."

B. The Appeal and Hearing

Petitioner appealed the Board's decision and was granted a hearing, which

took place over two days before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Prior to the

hearing, the parties stipulated to the majority of the Board's findings, agreeing

the altercation "occur[red] during and as a result of petitioner's regular and

assigned duties," was "identifiable as to time and place," "undesigned, and

unexpected," "was not the result of [petitioner's] willful negligence," and left

petitioner "totally and permanently disabled from the performance of petitioner's

regular and assigned job duties . . . or other duties that [his] employer [wa]s

willing to offer."

The Board noted that the event occurred during
and as a result of your regular or assigned duties.

Based upon the documentation provided, your
reported disability is not the result of your willful
negligence.

A-1431-24
4
Thus, the sole issue at the hearing concerned the nature and extent of any

causal link between the attack and petitioner's injury. The record included

testimony and reports from petitioner's medical expert, Dr. David Weiss, and

the Board's expert, Dr. Jeffrey Lakin, as well as the entirety of petitioner's

medical records, which were admitted without objection.

1. Petitioner's Medical Records and Prior History

Petitioner's medical and employment records reflected a history of left

shoulder injuries. On June 19, 2015, petitioner received debridement 2 surgery

on his left shoulder to repair a torn labrum. Petitioner's surgeon, Dr. Michael

Gross, reported petitioner had "a large flap tear from the [one] o'clock to the

[three] o'clock position." Dr. Gross further noted "[t]he labrum was

meticulously debrided leaving a smooth, well-balanced, stable, contoured labral

rim."

The records included an August 26, 2017 HCCC incident report stating

petitioner was transported to the hospital after he "pulled [his] shoulder"

attempting to open a broken door at the facility. The hospital records noted left

2
Petitioner's expert defined a shoulder debridement as a procedure in which the
surgeon "remove[s] enough tissue" to achieve a "stable rim" with "no hardware"
when a "tear [i]s not significant enough to warrant any reconstruction." The
Board's expert agreed a debridement would be appropriate when there is "just
fraying of the tissue."
A-1431-24
5
shoulder "instability" and "pain," as well as a "strain," but revealed petitioner

was released back to work to complete the remainder of his shift with minor

restrictions.

In the following months, petitioner reported pain, and physical therapy

was recommended. MRI reports dated September 9 and November 13, 2017,

reflected no labral tear.

In the summer of 2019, petitioner reported "spontaneous onset of pain at

the left shoulder" to Dr. Samuel Snyder. An x-ray showed "no abnormalities,"

and Dr. Snyder could not "establish any causal relationship for [petitioner's]

current spontaneous complaints of pain." Petitioner was diagnosed by Dr.

Snyder with "[i]mpingement syndrome of [the] left shoulder"; "[b]ursitis"; and

a muscle "[s]train." Dr. Snyder concluded petitioner "remain[ed] at maximum

medical improvement with respect to his [2017] accident" and could "continue

his full job responsibilities without restrictions." Additionally, a September 3,

2019 MRI reported "[b]lunting and scarring along the periphery of the posterior

labrum" and "[n]o discrete tear." An appointment note from Dr. Gross dated

January 22, 2020, indicated petitioner was still experiencing pain.

Relevant here, hospital records from November 20, 2020, reflect

petitioner was treated for a "[l]eft shoulder strain" and prescribed physical

A-1431-24
6
therapy after "grappling with an inmate." Those records indicate petitioner was

released and able to "[r]eturn to work" the following day with minimal

restrictions. Over the next month, petitioner continued to describe pain at follow

up appointments and reported an "[inability] to do small task[s] like opening

doors or even leaning on [his left shoulder]." An MRI report dated December

9, 2020, reported "undercutting [of] the superior labrum, which may represent a

tear" and a "somewhat diminutive" "[a]nterosuperior labrum."

On December 24, 2020, Dr. Adam Bernstein, an orthopedic surgeon,

evaluated petitioner and reported "[petitioner] indicate[d] the left shoulder was

never fully asymptomatic after his 2017 injury but he was able to return to work

and activities of daily living." Petitioner "indicate[d] . . . his symptoms and

function ha[d] severely worsened" after his November 2020 injury; however,

Dr. Bernstein opined "[t]he situation is confounded by his history of prior work

injury in 2017."

A January 31, 2021 arthrogram MRI of petitioner's left shoulder revealed

a "[f]ocal tear of the superior labrum at the labral cartilaginous junction at the

approximate [twelve] o'clock position of the glenoid just posterior to the biceps

labral complex . . . [with] [b]lunting along the periphery of the posterior

labrum." The following month, Dr. Bernstein performed surgery on petitioner's

A-1431-24
7
left shoulder, finding "significant irregularity" in the anterior superior labrum

"measured from approximately the [ten] o'clock and [eleven] o'clock position on

the left shoulder" and "the anterior inferior labrum had tearing." Dr. Bernstein

noted that "the anterior superior labrum[,] . . . the area of prior labral

debridement[,] . . . appear[ed] pristine and well attached." Over the following

six months, petitioner reported continued pain and inability to carry small

household objects.

A report summarizing an August 2021 Kinematic Functional Capacity

Evaluation (FCE) of petitioner noted "residual shoulder dysfunction," but stated

petitioner may have "portray[ed] less than maximum effort for this evaluation."

Dr. Bernstein reviewed petitioner's FCE results and observed petitioner "was

found to have the capacity for light duty work with lifting and pushing up to

[twenty] pounds" and advised "[t]hese restrictions should be considered

permanent." On October 27, 2021, Dr. Bernstein completed a "Medical

Examination by Personal or Treating Physician" form deeming petitioner "now

totally and permanently disabled and no longer able to perform his . . . job

duties" as a result of "pain" and "loss of motion."

A-1431-24
8
2. Hearing Testimony

Petitioner contended his 2020 injury was not a direct result of a pre-

existing condition because, after his 2015 surgery, "he worked without

limitation and continued normal activity for almost two years [before] he

suffered a mild shoulder sprain in 2017 . . . that did not cause any reinjury in the

form of tearing." He explained, despite his 2021 surgery, he "still can't lift [his]

arm" or "use it the way [he] want[s] to use it," citing his inability to play

basketball and softball or "any activity that [he] wanted to do on a daily basis"

due to both decreased "[r]ange of motion and pain." Petitioner discussed each

of his prior injuries, emphasizing each time he returned to work in the aftermath

without restrictions feeling "normal" and "perfectly fine." Petitioner testified

any interim injuries between 2015 and 2020 were just "strain[s]" and, "[f]rom

2015 to 2019, [he] had no problem until [he] started feeling in . . . late 2019, the

little pain in [his] shoulder."

Petitioner also presented the testimony of his expert, Dr. David Weiss, a

board-certified clinical orthopedic surgeon. In his August 9, 2023 independent

medical evaluation report, Dr. Weiss noted petitioner's range of motion was

"restricted." The doctor acknowledged petitioner had suffered prior injury to

his left shoulder but found "[petitioner] was having no issues involving his

A-1431-24
9
activities of daily living," and petitioner's November 2020 injury "directly

impacted [his] . . . abilities to perform his activities of daily living" which is

"consistent with a permanent disability." Dr. Weiss opined "[petitioner]

is . . . totally and permanently disabled as a corrections officer" which is "[t]he

substantial and direct result of . . . the traumatic event of the work[-]related

injury of November 20, 2020."

Dr. Weiss testified his examination revealed significant deficits in

petitioner's range of motion. Noting petitioner's 2015 surgery was "a simple

debridement" with no need for "labral reconstruction," Dr. Weiss cited

petitioner's subsequent negative MRIs and opined, "In [20]17[,] [petitioner] had

a brief exacerbation due to the prior surgery" that "resolved." Dr. Weiss

distinguished an "exacerbation" from an "aggravation," explaining with an

"aggravation . . . [y]ou never come back to your baseline again" while with

"exacerbation[,] . . . [y]ou come back to the same level that you were" before

the exacerbation and after the initial injury. Dr. Weiss noted after petitioner's

injury "in [20]17, he did return back to his baseline," as evidenced by his "doctor

sen[ding] him back to work full time with no restrictions."

With regard to petitioner's surgery following the November 2020 injury,

Dr. Weiss admitted "[y]ou can't deny [petitioner] ha[d] prior issues with the

A-1431-24
10
shoulder" but explained his condition did not "r[i]se to the level of needing

reconstruction." He added petitioner was "[five] years with a minor

exacerbation [and] . . . MRI studies that . . . were completely normal

until . . . the traumatic injury in [20]20 where . . . [he] need[ed] a complete

reconstruction" with "hardware." Dr. Weiss concluded, after "looking at the

first surgery [and] comparing it to the second surgery" as well as petitioner's

MRI scans, "the November 2020 event would be the substantial cause."

In contrast, Dr. Jeffrey Lakin, the Board's orthopedic expert, testified

petitioner's total disability was not a direct result of the 2020 injury. As

memorialized in his May 3, 2022 report prepared following his evaluation of

petitioner, Dr. Lakin noted petitioner's "left shoulder pain did not improve

following the [2021] surgery," and he "ha[d] difficulty" with a variety of daily

tasks and was "symptomatic to his left shoulder and had treatment prior to the

work-related accident of 11/20/[20]20." He observed a decreased range of

motion in petitioner's left shoulder rendered petitioner "totally and permanently

disabled from the performance of the normal duties of his job," but further

opined this was an "aggravation of a preexisting condition" and "not a direct

result of the work-related accident of 11/20/[20]20."

A-1431-24
11
Dr. Lakin testified petitioner's labral tear in 2015 "wasn't surgically

repaired, it was just debrided." The doctor noted petitioner also had

"inflammation" and "arthritis" in his shoulder joint. He indicated "based on [his]

review of the records[,] [petitioner] continue[d] to exhibit symptoms in the left

shoulder after [the 2017 injury] and prior to the subject incident" in November

2020, noting petitioner's complaints of pain in 2019 and early 2020. Dr. Lakin

described his review of the September 3, 2019 MRI which noted "capsular

laxity," which results "when the labrum is stretched out or it's torn." He

explained "the best way to see" a tear would be "intraoperatively."

Regarding the November 2020 injury, Dr. Lakin explained that

petitioner's surgeon "saw that there was arthritis" in the left shoulder, which

"doesn't happen acutely, it's something that's worn down over a long period of

time." Dr. Lakin concluded "the major contributing factor [to petitioner's total

disability] was a pre-existing injury to [petitioner's] shoulder where he had a

large labral tear that was never repaired and he was still symptomatic even at

the year . . . of this accident." Dr. Lakin explained, "[petitioner] had a severe

shoulder pathology that wasn't repaired . . . [it was] just debrided, so eventually

he was going to be disabled at some point in time regardless." He posited the

A-1431-24
12
2020 labral tear "was present since 2015," and petitioner's return to work

subsequent to the 2017 and 2019 injuries did not undermine that conclusion.

1. The Hearing Decision and Final Board Determination

By detailed written decision dated November 22, 2024, in which she set

forth the procedural and factual history, as well as the testimony and medical

evidence, the ALJ affirmed the Board's decision denying petitioner's request for

accidental disability benefits. The ALJ clarified "[t]he pivotal issue" was

"whether [petitioner's] reported disability was the result of a pre-existing disease

alone or a pre-existing disease that was aggravated or accelerated by the work

effort." The ALJ found the latter, crediting the Board's expert.

Assessing "the strength of the competing expert testimony," the ALJ

found "the scales tip[ped] in favor of [Dr.] Lakin'[s]" opinions over Dr. Weiss's.

She found Dr. "Lakin's testimony to be credible, persuasive, and consistent with

other offered evidence," and noted his "conclusions . . . were not significantly

impaired by counsel's thorough cross-examination." Valuing Dr. Lakin's

reliance on "objective measures rather than simply relying on [petitioner's] self-

reports," the ALJ further found Dr. "Lakin credibly explained that [petitioner]

had severe shoulder pathology and a large structural problem caused by a pre -

existing condition." Thus, she accepted his testimony opining "[p]rior to the

A-1431-24
13
November 20, 2020 incident, [petitioner] 'had a large labral tear that was never

repaired' and 'was just debrided.'"

The ALJ concluded it was unclear to what extent Dr. Weiss reviewed

petitioner's medical records between petitioner's 2015 and 2020 injuries and

noted "substantial doubt regarding the reliability and accuracy of [petitioner's]

reporting to [Dr.] Weiss." The ALJ also found Dr. Weiss's testimony petitioner

had only "minor exacerbation" from 2015 to 2020 was not accurate , as "the

record paint[ed] a different portrait." The ALJ noted several instances of

petitioner's complaining of "severe pain" in 2017, 2019, and 2020. The ALJ

concluded "the records undermine[d] [petitioner's] testimony that after the 2019

injury, even though he was having pain, he was able to work 'perfectly fine,' he

'did daily life perfectly fine,' and 'everything was normal.'"

The ALJ acknowledged the MRIs between the major injuries showed no

labral tear, and noted petitioner's argument that "the November 20, 2020

incident caused damage to a portion of his labrum that had not been previously

damaged" based on differing locations of the 2015 and 2020 noted injuries.3

However, the ALJ found petitioner's arguments unpersuasive reasoning "this

3
Notably, Dr. Gross's 2015 Operative Report and Dr. Bernstein's 2021
Operative Report were included in the ALJ's "List of Exhibits in Evidence."
A-1431-24
14
issue was never identified as a basis for [Dr. Weiss's] opinions," nor "was [it]

addressed during [petitioner's] cross-examination of [Dr.] Lakin."

The ALJ emphasized petitioner "was not asymptomatic [and] exhibited

symptoms related to his shoulder condition for many years before" the 2020

incident. Further, she cited "Dr. L[a]kin's credibl[e] testi[mony] that it was only

'going to be a matter of time' until [petitioner] would be unable to carry out his

job duties because he had already developed traumatic arthritis to his shoulder

from the 2015 injury." Therefore, the ALJ concluded "[petitioner] failed to meet

his burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the

November 20, 2020 incident was the essential significant or substantial

contributing cause of his resulting total and permanent disability."

By letter dated January 15, 2025, the Board advised petitioner it

considered and adopted the ALJ's decision affirming the "denial of [petitioner's]

application for [a]ccidental [d]isability retirement benefits."

II.

A.

On appeal, petitioner argues the Board erred because the evidence

demonstrated the 2020 incident was the essential, significant, or substantial

contributing cause of his total and permanent disability. Petitioner maintains

A-1431-24
15
his 2015 "prior injury, regardless of whether or not it presented an occasional

exacerbation, was not permanently disabling to [petitioner]," as demonstrated

by his continuing ability to work in "full capacity" prior to the November 2020

incident. Further, petitioner argues the Board is "not entitled to substantial

deference" in this matter "[a]s this is strictly a legal issue." Petitioner further

asserts his expert's qualifications and opinions were superior and more

persuasive than the Board's expert's and the court incorrectly credited and relied

upon Dr. Lakin's opinions.

B.

"We review a decision made by an administrative agency entrusted to

apply and enforce a statutory scheme under an enhanced deferential standard."

E. Bay Drywall, LLC v. Dep't of Lab. & Workforce Dev., 251 N.J. 477, 493

(2022). Accordingly, we will "not disturb an administrative agency's

determinations or findings unless there is a clear showing that (1) the agency

did not follow the law; (2) the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence." In

re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Vorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413,

422 (2008); see also Sullivan v. Bd. of Rev., Dep't of Lab., 471 N.J. Super. 147,

155-56 (App. Div. 2022). The burden to show an agency's abuse of discretion

A-1431-24
16
"is on the challenger." Parsells v. Bd. of Educ., 472 N.J. Super. 369, 376 (App.

Div. 2022).

In reviewing an agency's decision, "the test is not whether [we] would

come to the same conclusion if the original determination was [ours] to make,

but rather whether the factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs."

Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Rev.,

200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)). Further, we afford "[w]ide

discretion . . . to administrative decisions because of an agency's specialized

knowledge." In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J. 357, 390

(2020). On review, we consider:

(1) whether the agency's action violates express or
implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency
follow the law; (2) whether the record contains
substantial evidence to support the findings on which
the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying
the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly
erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably
have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.

[Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995) (citing
Campbell v. Dep't of Civ. Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562
(1963)).]

The governing law related to police and fire disability benefits is set forth

in Chapter 16A of Title 43. N.J.S.A. 43:16A-1 to -68. Pertinent here, N.J.S.A.

43:16A-7 specifically sets forth the requirements for a member to receive

A-1431-24
17
retirement benefits for accidental disability. The statute provides in relevant

part:

Any member may be retired on an accidental disability
retirement allowance, provided that the medical board,
after a medical examination of such member, shall
certify that 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 . . . .

[N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7(a)(1) (emphasis added).]
Although generally "a pre[-]existing condition or disease in combination

with other employment-related factors might not constitute an 'accidental

disability'[,]" "sufficient medical cause [can be satisfied by] a traumatic event

that constitutes the essential significant or the substantial contributing cause of

the resultant disability." Gerba v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 83 N.J.

174, 184, 186 (1980) (emphasis added); see also Petrucelli v. Bd. of Trs., Pub.

Emps.' Ret. Sys., 211 N.J. Super. 280, 287 (App. Div. 1986).4 The statute's use

of "[t]he word 'direct' connotes relative freedom from remoteness, whether in

terms of time, intervention of other contributive causes or the like, or a

combination of such factors." Gerba, 83 N.J. at 186 (quoting Titman v. Bd. of

4
These cases refer numerically to a different statute due to subsequent re-
numbering and ordering of the statute.
A-1431-24
18
Trs., Tchrs.' Pension & Annuity Fund, 107 N.J. Super. 244, 247 (App. Div.

1969)).

Further, "a basis for an accidental disability pension would exist if it were

shown that the disability directly resulted from the combined effect of a

traumatic event and a pre[-]existing disease." Id. at 186-87 (quoting Cattani v.

Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 69 N.J. 578, 586 (1976)).

Accordingly, "the traumatic event need not be the sole or exclusive cause of the

disability" as it is sufficient that "the traumatic event is the . . . essential

significant or substantial contributing cause of the disability." Id. at 187; see

also Korelnia v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 83 N.J. 163, 170 (1980).

However, "the Legislature's change of the term 'result' to 'direct result' was

'intended to impose a stringent test of medical causation and . . . that the

trauma . . . must at the very least be the essential significant or the substantial

contributing cause of the disability.'" Kasper v. Bd. of Trs., Tchrs.' Pension &

Annuity Fund, 164 N.J. 564, 577 (2000) (omissions in original) (quoting

Korelnia, 83 N.J. at 170).

New Jersey courts have evaluated this causal requirement with varied,

fact-sensitive determinations. See, e.g., Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police &

Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189, 193 (2007) (petitioner qualified for accidental

A-1431-24
19
disability because there was sufficient "direct" causation when "an inmate

violently resisted being handcuffed" which resulted in the inmate "knocking

[petitioner] backward" and him completely tearing a ligament in his wrist);

Gerba, 83 N.J. at 176, 189 (petitioner did not qualify for accidental disability

benefits after a fall at work because he had a prior back injury and the new

trauma only "contributed to the progression of that condition presumably by

aggravation"); Quigley v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 231 N.J. Super.

211, 221-24 (App. Div. 1989) (petitioner did not qualify for accidental disability

benefits after getting rear-ended by a truck a year after a fall at work because

the petitioner's "disability was not the 'direct result'" of his earlier fall);

Petrucelli, 211 N.J. Super. at 289 (petitioner qualified for accidental disability

after he fell at work because "the 'direct result' test was legally satisfied" as

petitioner had "no prior back problems of any kind" even though petitioner had

a "structural anomaly" in his back); Pushko v. Bd. of Trs., Tchrs.' Pension &

Annuity Fund, 202 N.J. Super. 98, 99-101 (App. Div. 1985) (finding sufficient

causation between a petitioner's total disability, which was psychiatric in nature,

from his employment as a teacher and violent incidents involving students

attacking him).

A-1431-24
20
Against this backdrop and in these circumstances, we discern no basis to

disturb the Board's determination. The Board reviewed and adopted the ALJ's

findings, which were sufficiently grounded in the record. It was undisputed

petitioner's prior shoulder injury remained symptomatic in the years leading up

to the November 2020 incident. Petitioner's continued reports of pain were well-

documented. Dr. Lakin, with sound credentials and experience, evaluated

petitioner and his medical history, finding he "had a severe shoulder pathology

that wasn't repaired in the beginning that was just . . . debrided." The expert

observed petitioner's 2020 injury consisted of some arthritic conditions which

"develop[ed] over a long period of time." Although petitioner's MRIs from 2017

and 2019 showed no labral tear, Dr. Lakin explained MRIs can "miss a lot of

SLAP lesions," and the "best way to see" a SLAP tear, like petitioner's, is

"intraoperatively." Critically, Dr. Lakin concluded petitioner's unrepaired prior

injury largely caused his total disability, and the ALJ and the Board found that

opinion persuasive.

Here, the ALJ observed and heard the testimony of both experts and

reviewed petitioner's prior medical history. The ALJ found Dr. Lakin's

testimony more credible than Dr. Weiss's and supported that conclusion with

reference to the record. Although petitioner contends his expert's causation

A-1431-24
21
opinion should have outweighed Dr. Lakin's, we will not supplant our judgment

for that of the Board or the ALJ who painstakingly reviewed the testimony and

evidence and supported the factual and credibility findings with detailed

reasoning and citations to the record. See H.K. v. State, 184 N.J. 367, 384

(2005) (recognizing we will not "disturb th[e] credibility determination[s]" of

the ALJ "made after due consideration of the witnesses' testimony and demeanor

during the hearing"). The experts, both qualified in the field of orthopedic

medicine, diverged in their assessment of the severity of petitioner's prior

shoulder injuries and the extent of its lasting impact. This conflict in opinion

does not persuade us the ALJ or the Board erred in accepting one over the other.

We are satisfied the Board did not err in finding the 2020 incident was not

the direct essential significant or substantial cause of petitioner's total disability.

Affirmed.

A-1431-24
22