The 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1998-17T4
JOHANNAH G. SHOLOMISKY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE
AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT
SYSTEM,
Respondent-Respondent.
_____________________________
Argued January 16, 2019 – Decided February 20, 2019
Before Judges Nugent and Mawla.
On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Police and
Firemen's Retirement System, Department of the
Treasury, PFRS No. 3-10-052154.
Donald C. Barbati argued the cause for appellant
(Crivelli & Barbati, LLC, attorneys; Frank M. Crivelli
and Donald C. Barbati, on the brief).
Amy Chung, Assistant Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Eric L. Apar, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Johannah Sholomisky, a former corrections officer, appeals
from the final agency decision of the Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's
Retirement System (the Board), that denied her application for accidental
disability retirement benefits. Throughout the administrative proceedings — the
initial rejection of petitioner's application, the contested hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and the Board's final consideration of
petitioner's objections to the ALJ's decision — the parties' primary dispute was
whether petitioner's disability directly resulted from the trauma she suffered
while subduing a prisoner during the course of her employment, or from a pre-
existing medical condition. The ALJ and the Board found credible the medical
evidence that petitioner's disability was not the direct result of a traumatic event.
We affirm. The Board's decision is supported by sufficient credible
evidence on the record as a whole. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). Petitioner's arguments
are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-1998-17T4
2