IN THE MATTER OF OLUWASEGUN OLADIPO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1351-16T1



IN THE MATTER OF OLUWASEGUN
OLADIPO, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, TRENTON PSYCHIATRIC
HOSPITAL.
______________________________

           Argued January 23, 2018 – Decided April 17, 2018

           Before Judges Fisher and Moynihan.

           On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
           Commission, Docket No. 2014-806.

           Lawrence E. Popp argued the cause for
           appellant Oluwasegun Oladipo (Gaylord Popp,
           LLC, attorneys; Lawrence E. Popp, on the
           brief).

           Marolhin D. Mendez, Deputy Attorney General,
           argued the cause for respondent Trenton
           Psychiatric Hospital (Gurbir S. Grewal,
           Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa,
           Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
           Marolhin D. Mendez, on the brief).

           Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General,
           attorney   for   respondent    Civil  Service
           Commission   (Gurbir  S.    Grewal,  Attorney
           General, attorney, Alan C. Stephens, on the
           statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM

      Oluwasegun Oladipo appeals the Civil Service Commission's

final   administrative      action       upholding     the   administrative       law

judge's initial decision removing Oladipo from his human services

assistant position with the Department of Human Services.                           He

requests that we "focus on [the ALJ's] misapplication of the

evidence in the record."          A careful review of the record leads us

to   conclude     the   ALJ's    decision     was    supported     by   substantial

credible     evidence      and     was    not       arbitrary,     capricious       or

unreasonable.      Accordingly, we affirm.

      The   ALJ    found   that     Oladipo,    while     on     duty   at   Trenton

Psychiatric Hospital, assaulted a patient by punching him in the

stomach.     The ALJ credited the sequestered testimony of two

eyewitnesses – Oladipo's coworkers — who both testified they heard

a commotion in the patient's room, and responded to see a milk

carton thrown at Oladipo as he exited the room.                  Oladipo reentered

the room; despite efforts by both coworkers to have him leave

because he and the patient were yelling at each other, he refused

to leave.    The patient pushed Oladipo in the chest.               Although both

coworkers moved in and stood on either side of the patient to keep

the patient and Oladipo separated, Oladipo forcefully punched the

patient in the abdomen.          Oladipo had to be physically removed from

the room by other staff.          The ALJ also watched videotaped footage

                                          2                                  A-1351-16T1
of the hallway outside the patient's room and listened to the

testimony of both coworkers who, as the ALJ said, "describ[ed]

their movements and those of other staff" and "correlated the

contents of the tape to their testimony."         She also heard medical

testimony about the patient's abdominal contusion, and testimony

from instructional and managerial staff that staff are never to

strike a patient.

       The ALJ found the two coworkers to be credible, observing

they    "were   direct    and   articulate   in   their   testimony   and

corroborated the other's version of events."         She described their

recount of the incident as "coherent, linear and believable from

their testimony and in light of the other corroborating evidence

in the record," including the videotape footage.              She found

Oladipo's testimony "not as credible" because his contentions were

uncorroborated and the videotape footage was "more consistent"

with the coworkers' version than his.

       We recognize our

           "'limited role' in the review of [Commission]
           decisions." In re Stallworth, 
208 N.J. 182,
           194 (2011) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State
           Prison, 
81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980)).          "An
           appellate court affords a 'strong presumption
           of reasonableness' to an administrative
           agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated
           responsibilities." Lavezzi v. State, 
219 N.J.
           163, 171 (2014) (quoting City of Newark v.
           Nat. Res. Council, Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 82
           N.J. 530, 539 (1980)). "In order to reverse

                                     3                           A-1351-16T1
            an agency's judgment, an appellate court must
            find the agency's decision to be 'arbitrary,
            capricious, or unreasonable, or . . . not
            supported by substantial credible evidence in
            the record as a whole.'" Stallworth, 208 N.J.
            at 194 (quoting Henry, 
81 N.J. at 579-80)
            (alteration in original)).

            [Matter of Restrepo, Dept. of Corrections, 449
            N.J. Super. 409, 417 (App. Div.), certif.
            denied, 
230 N.J. 574 (2017).]

As a general rule, the reviewing court should give "due regard to

the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge of

their credibility . . . and . . . [give] due regard also to the

agency's expertise where such expertise is a pertinent factor."

Clowes    v.   Terminix   Int'l,   Inc.,   
109 N.J.   575,   587    (1988)

(alterations in original) (quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 
44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)).

       Adhering to that limited review standard, we conclude the

ALJ's findings were well-supported by the record, and that her

decision was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.1

       Affirmed.




1
    Appellant did not challenge the sanction imposed.

                                    4                                A-1351-16T1