NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

Brett Anastos, an equipment operator for the City of Garfield's Department of Public Works, appeals a final agency decision denying him accidental disability retirement benefits. Because our standard of review requires our deference to an agency's findings of fact and expertise, we affirm.

Appellant was originally employed by Garfield in January 1992 as a water operator; he was transferred to public works when Garfield automated its water system a few years before the incident that gave rise to the pension application in question. On August 11, 2010, appellant was assigned to drive a dump truck around the city and pick up debris left on the streets by residents. Homeowners were instructed to leave bundles of no more than four feet in length and no more than forty pounds. Appellant claimed he came to a home that had "6 to 8 bundles of what appeared to be branches tied up, neatly and nicely on the curb." He stopped, exited the truck, and picked up one of the bundles "to throw it up over [his] head into the dump truck." However, "as it got into the air," appellant realized "it wasn't one bundle, [but] was like four bundles all tied together." He claimed his "back gave out" from the initial jerk of the bundles into the air and onto the truck. Appellant advised his superior of the occurrence, sought medical attention, later declined surgery recommended to him, and remained out of work for four months.

Upon his return to work, appellant was assigned a data entry position but claimed the sedentary nature of the job — and his need to move about frequently because of back pain — precluded his ability to perform this job.

Consequently, appellant applied for an accidental disability pension that was denied by the Board of Trustees (Board) based on its determination that appellant was not totally and permanently disabled as a direct result of the August 11, 2010 event, which the Board also found was not undesigned and unexpected.

This determination was appealed and the matter transferred to the Office of Administrative Law, where a hearing was conducted before Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey A. Gerson on August 19 and 20, 2013. At that time, ALJ Gerson heard the testimony of appellant, as well as Garfield's city manager, and two medical experts; the ALJ also considered the reports of appellant's three treating physicians.

In his written findings, ALJ Gerson gave more credence to the Board's medical expert, Dr. Arnold T. Berman, whom the ALJ described as "an accomplished orthopedist" in light of his many credentials and experiences described in the opinion; by comparison, the ALJ observed that appellant's medical expert, Dr. Vijaykumar Kulkarni, was "not an orthopedist, but rather, a general practitioner." In addition, although Dr. Berman's view that there was "no objective evidence of a disability" was found more persuasive, the ALJ also recognized that Dr. Kulkarni "contradicted his own testimony that [appellant] was totally and permanently disabled" and "conceded that [appellant's] symptoms with respect to the disc herniations were worse in 2002, yet [appellant] was able to return to work [and continue] until 2010." The ALJ further recognized that both medical experts "unequivocally agreed that [appellant] could work in a position that did not require heavy lifting and allowed periodic breaks," such as the data entry position offered after appellant returned to work following the August 11, 2010 incident. As the ALJ observed, appellant was required to establish he was totally and permanently disabled from performing both his original position and that which was offered to him after the accident, and he was not entitled to reject the latter because of a personal preference for a disability pension. Bueno v. Bd. of Trs., Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 404 N.J.Super. 119, 131 (App. Div. 2008), certif. denied, 199 N.J. 540 (2009).

The ALJ also concluded, through his careful application of the test described by the Supreme Court, that the incident described above was not "undesigned and unexpected." Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189, 212-13 (2007). The ALJ also determined the August 11, 2010 event "merely aggravated [appellant's] prior injuries," a fact that further disqualified him from receipt of an accidental disability pension. Id. at 213.

The Board adopted the ALJ's recommendations, leading to this appeal, in which appellant argues:

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We write further only to observe that our standard of review requires deference to an agency's factual findings when supported by substantial credible evidence, as here. In re Young, 202 N.J. 50, 70-71 (2010). Although our standard of review is not so restricted when examining an agency's application of law, we nevertheless give "considerable weight" to an agency's interpretation of the laws it is charged with enforcing. G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161, 170 (1999). The ALJ's factual findings, which were adopted by the Board, were firmly grounded on evidence found credible. And, having closely examined the application of the Richardson test to those facts, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by ALJ Gerson in his thoughtful written opinion.

Affirmed.