D.E.M., CSC Docket No. 2023-1344

BackgroundD.E.M. requests reconsideration of the final decision of the Civil Service Commission (Commission), rendered on November 2, 2022, which upheld the removal of his name from the eligible list for Fire Fighter (M1809W), City of Camden, on the basis of psychological unfitness to perform effectively the duties of the position.

Appellant's argumentIn his request for reconsideration, the petitioner disagrees with the Report and Recommendation of the Medical Review Panel (Panel) and the Commission’s affirmation of the Panel’s findings and conclusions. He indicates that he has retained legal counsel and “would like to challenge this decision made by the [Panel].” It is noted that, by letter dated December 23, 2022, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to supplement the record to support his request for reconsideration.1 However, the petitioner did not submit any further information. Moreover, a letter of representation by an attorney was never received.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(b) sets forth the standards by which a prior decision may be reconsidered. This rule provides that a party must show that a clear material error has occurred or present new evidence or additional information not presented at the original proceeding which would change the outcome of the case and the reasons that such evidence was not presented at the original proceeding.

Analysis1 The appointing authority was also provided with an opportunity to respond to the petitioner’s request for reconsideration, but it did not do so.

In the instant matter, the Commission finds that the petitioner, although afforded an opportunity to do so, has submitted no arguments or proofs to support his request for reconsideration. Thus, the petitioner has failed to satisfy his burden of proof in this matter. In that regard, after consideration of all of the relevant issues in this matter, the Commission finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that an error has occurred or presented any new evidence or additional information that would change the original outcome of his appeal. Therefore, the Commission finds no grounds on which to grant reconsideration of its prior decision. Accordingly, no basis exists to restore the petitioner’s name to the subject eligible list.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this request for reconsideration be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.