On appeal from a Final Administrative Decision of the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, No. 2007-4756.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Wefing and Messano.
Wilfredo Medina appeals from a Final Administrative Decision of the Civil Service Commission (the "Commission") finding him psychologically unfit for duty as a member of the Newark Police Department (the "Department") and upholding the decision of that department that he should be removed. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
The Department decided to remove Medina after he was charged with breaking into the apartment of the mother of his child. He said he did so because he disapproved of her current boyfriend. Medina appealed, and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested matter. At the trial before an administrative law judge, each side presented expert testimony. The City presented Amie Wolf-Mehlman, Ph.D, who had conducted several evaluations of Medina during the course of his employment.
Dr. Wolf noted that Medina tended to externalize blame, that is, to deny any responsibility for problems that had developed. On the psychological tests that were performed, he had elevated scores for overcontrolled hostility and defensiveness. She explained that an elevated score for over-controlled hostility "indicate[s] the presence of repressed anger or frustration or hostility and because it is so repressed based on the elevation, there's the potential for him to behave either with a verbal impulsivity or with some form of impulsivity."
She noted that Medina had accumulated an extensive disciplinary history since he joined the department in 1993 and had previously been suspended from duty for insubordination. He also had been the subject of several domestic violence complaints. On one occasion, a child managed to obtain Medina's service revolver and shoot himself in the foot because it was not properly secured. She noted that there was an ongoing pattern of problems, going back at least to 1998. It was Dr. Wolf's opinion that in light of this long pattern, and the opportunities that had been given to Medina, including participation in therapy with no improvement, that he was psychologically unfit to remain as a police officer and should be removed. She testified that in light of this history, she had concluded that he "presented the potential for being a danger to himself or others on the job based on the fact that he has personality characteristics that make him prone to behaving impulsively and with poor judgment[,] and judgment and impulsivity are critical to performing well as a police officer."
While Medina himself did not testify, he did present his own expert witness, Edward J. Dougherty, Ed.D., who evaluated Medina in February 2007. Dr. Dougherty said that he found Medina to be defensive, but considered that normal in light of the circumstances and the potential consequences he faced. Dr. Dougherty testified that he found no evidence of a serious personality disorder and nothing that would preclude Medina from serving as a police officer. Dr. Dougherty admitted that he did not review Medina's disciplinary history as part of his evaluation or prior to completing his report.
The administrative law judge issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in which he rejected Dr. Wolf's opinion and accepted Dr. Dougherty's. He ruled that the charges against Medina should be dismissed and Medina be reinstated as a police officer. The City filed exceptions, and the Civil Service Commission issued its final determination rejecting the decision of the administrative law judge and finding Medina's removal justified. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Medina raises the following contentions for our consideration:
POINT I THE DECISION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND UNREASONABLE AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE REVERSED.
POINT II THE DETERMINATION TO TERMINATE OFFICER MEDINA SHOULD BE REVERSED.
We note first the limited scope of our review in a matter such as this. Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998). A final decision of an administrative body such as the Civil Service Commission should not be disturbed on ...