NJ Civil Service Navigator

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 Back pay, benefits and seniority

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10, Back pay, benefits and seniority. Where a disciplinary penalty has been reversed, the Commission shall award back pay, benefits, seniority or restitution of a fine. Such items may be awarded Full text with 5 recorded amendments, 138 citing decisions, cited by 5 other rules.

Appeals, Discipline, and Separations · Major Discipline

Current through New Jersey Register, Vol. 58 No. 14, July 20, 2026. Reviewed as of July 26, 2026.

This is an annotated mirror, not the official publication. Verify against the Civil Service Commission before relying on it.

In plain language

What you get back when discipline is overturned. Where a penalty is reversed the Commission must award back pay, benefits, seniority or restitution of a fine; where a penalty is only modified, it may award them. Suspension pending a criminal matter is treated separately and splits by job. A municipal police officer gets back pay, benefits and seniority under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-149.1 after the charges are disposed of. Everybody else gets them if acquitted at trial, or if the complaint or indictment is dismissed, or if the prosecution is terminated. Two disposals that feel like wins do not count: Conditional Discharge and Pre-Trial Intervention both leave you without back pay. And where disciplinary action followed the criminal disposition, nothing is awarded in a removal case.

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team from the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. It is a description of the rule, not the rule itself, and not legal advice.

(a) Where a disciplinary penalty has been reversed, the Commission shall award back pay, benefits, seniority or restitution of a fine. Such items may be awarded when a disciplinary penalty is modified. #

(b) Where a municipal police officer has been suspended based on a pending criminal complaint or indictment, following disposition of the charges the officer shall receive back pay, benefits and seniority pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-149.1 et seq. #

(c) Where an employee, other than a municipal police officer, has been suspended based on a pending criminal complaint or indictment, following disposition of the charges the employee shall receive back pay, benefits and seniority if the employee is found not guilty at trial, the complaint or indictment is dismissed, or the prosecution is terminated. #

1. Such items shall not be awarded when the complaint or indictment is disposed of through Conditional Discharge, N.J.S.A. 2C:36A-1, or Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12 et seq. #

2. Where disciplinary action has been taken following disposition of the complaint or indictment, such items shall not be awarded in case of removal. In case of suspension, where the employee has already been suspended for more than six months pending disposition of the complaint or indictment, the disciplinary suspension shall be applied against the period of indefinite suspension. The employee shall receive back pay for the period of suspension beyond six months, but the appointing authority may for good cause deny back pay for the period beyond the disciplinary suspension up to a maximum of six months. #

(d) Back pay shall include unpaid salary, including regular wages, overlap shift time, increments and across-the-board adjustments. Benefits shall include vacation and sick leave credits and additional amounts expended by the employee to maintain his or her health insurance coverage during the period of improper suspension or removal. #

1. Back pay shall not include items such as overtime pay, holiday premium pay and retroactive clothing, uniform or equipment allowances for periods in which the employee was not working. #

2. The award of back pay shall be reduced by the amount of taxes, social security payments, dues, pension payments, and any other sums normally withheld. #

3. Where a removal or suspension has been reversed or modified, an indefinite suspension pending the disposition of criminal charges has been reversed, the award of back pay shall be reduced by the amount of money that was actually earned during the period of separation, including any unemployment insurance benefits received, subject to any applicable limitations set forth in (d)4 below. #

4. Where a removal or a suspension for more than 30 working days has been reversed or modified or an indefinite suspension pending the disposition of criminal charges has been reversed, and the employee has been unemployed or underemployed for all or a part of the period of separation, and the employee has failed to make reasonable efforts to find suitable employment during the period of separation, the employee shall not be eligible for back pay for any period during which the employee failed to make such reasonable efforts. #

i. "Underemployed" shall mean employment during a period of separation from the employee's public employment that does not constitute suitable employment. #

ii. "Reasonable efforts" may include, but not be limited to, reviewing classified advertisements in newspapers or trade publications; reviewing Internet or on-line job listings or services; applying for suitable positions; attending job fairs; visiting employment agencies; networking with other people; and distributing resumes. #

iii. "Suitable employment" or "suitable position" shall mean employment that is comparable to the employee's permanent career service position with respect to job duties, responsibilities, functions, location, and salary. #

iv. The determination as to whether the employee has made reasonable efforts to find suitable employment shall be based upon the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, the nature of the disciplinary action taken against the employee; the nature of the employee's public employment; the employee's skills, education, and experience; the job market; the existence of advertised, suitable employment opportunities; the manner in which the type of employment involved is commonly sought; and any other circumstances deemed relevant based upon the particular facts of the matter. #

v. The burden of proof shall be on the employer to establish that the employee has not made reasonable efforts to find suitable employment. #

5. An employee shall not be required to mitigate back pay for any period between the issue date of a Civil Service Commission decision reversing or modifying a removal or reversing an indefinite suspension and the date of actual reinstatement. The award of back pay for this time period shall be reduced only by the amount of money that was actually earned during that period, including any unemployment insurance benefits received. #

6. Should a Civil Service Commission decision reversing or modifying a removal or reversing an indefinite suspension subsequently be stayed, an individual shall be required to mitigate an award of back pay from the date of the stay through the date of actual reinstatement, in accordance with (d)4i through v above. #

7. If an employee also held other employment at the time of the adverse action, the back pay award shall not be reduced by earnings from such other employment. However, if the employee increased his or her work hours at the other employment during the back pay period, the back pay award shall be reduced by the earnings from such additional hours. #

8. A back pay award is subject to reduction by any period of unreasonable delay of the appeal proceedings directly attributable to the employee. Delays caused by an employee's representative may not be considered in reducing the award of back pay. #

9. A back pay award is subject to reduction for any period of time during which the employee was disabled from working. #

10. Funds that must be repaid by the employee shall not be considered when calculating back pay. #

(e) Unless otherwise ordered, an award of back pay, benefits and seniority shall be calculated from the effective date of the appointing authority's improper action to the date of the employee's actual reinstatement to the payroll. #

(f) When the Commission awards back pay and benefits, determination of the actual amounts shall be settled by the parties whenever possible. #

(g) If settlement on an amount cannot be reached, either party may request, in writing, Commission review of the outstanding issue. In a Commission review: #

1. The appointing authority shall submit information on the salary the employee was earning at the time of the adverse action, plus increments and across-the-board adjustments that the employee would have received during the separation period; and #

2. The employee shall submit an affidavit setting forth all income received during the separation. #

(h) See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.13 for situations in which certain law enforcement officers or firefighters have appealed a removal that has been reversed or modified. #

What you get back if the discipline is reversed

Reversal and modification are not treated alike. Where a disciplinary penalty has been reversed, the Commission shall award back pay, benefits, seniority or restitution of a fine. Where the penalty is modified rather than reversed, those items may be awarded. Unless otherwise ordered, the award is calculated from the effective date of the appointing authority's improper action to the date you are actually back on the payroll.

Back pay is unpaid salary, meaning regular wages, overlap shift time, increments and across-the-board adjustments. Benefits are vacation and sick leave credits plus the additional amounts you spent to maintain health insurance coverage during the improper suspension or removal. Overtime pay, holiday premium pay and retroactive clothing, uniform or equipment allowances for periods you were not working are excluded. Taxes, social security, dues, pension payments and anything else normally withheld come off the award.

Then the reductions, which is where most of the argument sits. Money actually earned during the separation is deducted, including unemployment insurance benefits. Where a removal or a suspension of more than 30 working days has been reversed or modified and you were unemployed or underemployed and failed to make reasonable efforts to find suitable employment, no back pay is payable for that period. Suitable employment means work comparable to your permanent career service position in duties, responsibilities, functions, location and salary, and reasonable efforts run to reviewing classified advertisements and online listings, applying for positions, attending job fairs, visiting employment agencies, networking and distributing resumes. The burden of showing you did not make those efforts is on the employer. Mitigation also stops at the Commission decision: for the stretch between the decision and actual reinstatement only actual earnings are deducted, unless the decision is stayed, in which case the duty restarts from the date of the stay. Other employment you already held at the time of the adverse action does not reduce the award, though extra hours you added at it do. Unreasonable delay in the appeal directly attributable to you reduces the award, but delay caused by your representative may not be counted against you.

Suspension pending criminal charges is its own arithmetic, and municipal police officers are split off from everybody else, their back pay after disposition being set by statute rather than by this rule. For everyone else, back pay, benefits and seniority follow a finding of not guilty at trial, a dismissal of the complaint or indictment, or a terminated prosecution. Conditional Discharge and Pre-Trial Intervention are carved out, and a disposition through either produces no award. Note that a suspension continues through both: the complaint or indictment is not treated as disposed of until PTI is completed or the conditional discharge conditions are satisfied. Where discipline follows the disposition, removal produces nothing; on a suspension, the disciplinary suspension is applied against the indefinite suspension already served, back pay runs for the period beyond six months, and the appointing authority may for good cause deny back pay for the period beyond the disciplinary suspension up to a further six months.

The money itself is settled by the parties wherever possible. Failing that, either side may ask the Commission in writing to review the outstanding issue, on which the appointing authority submits the salary you were earning plus the increments and adjustments you would have received, and you submit an affidavit of all income received during the separation. Interest is separate and discretionary, available where the appointing authority has unreasonably delayed compliance with an order or where the Commission finds sufficient cause on the particular case. Counsel fees are a different rule with a different test. Law enforcement officers and firefighters who win a removal appeal have their own timetable, with back pay, benefits, seniority and counsel fees due within 60 days of the decision.

Related on this site: /discipline-removal

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team. Every statement here traces to the rules cited on this page. It is not legal advice, and a collective agreement may change how these rules apply to you.

Amendment history

Rule numbers, effective dates and New Jersey Register citations as published. 5 recorded changes.

  1. ReadoptedR.2010 d.176
    42 N.J.R. 693(a); 42 N.J.R. 1855(a)
  2. AmendedR.2008 d.215
    40 N.J.R. 1402(a); 40 N.J.R. 4520(a); 41 N.J.R. 2720(a)
  3. AmendedR.1997 d.435
    29 N.J.R. 3102(a); 29 N.J.R. 4455(b)
  4. AmendedR.1992 d.414
    24 N.J.R. 2491(a); 24 N.J.R. 3716(a)
1 editorial correction (punctuation and cross-reference updates)
  1. AmendedR.2010 d.068
    42 N.J.R. 116(a); 42 N.J.R. 928(a)

How this rule has been applied

138 decisions have cited N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. The list below is citations to those decisions, not the decisions. The summary above is ours, written from the opinion after reading it. Nothing here is legal advice.

Decisions we have read

O'Lone v. Department of Human Services357 N.J. Super. 170, January 28, 2003

An employee whose removal was eventually cut down to a three month suspension was refused about three years of back pay on the sole ground that he had not looked for other work while he was out. The Appellate Division accepted that he had not looked, and still held that finding could not wipe out the claim by itself. The employer has to show what work he could realistically have obtained, and the award is then reduced by what he would have earned in it, because the rule speaks of money that could have been earned rather than of effort spent searching.

Read the opinion (free, via CourtListener). Summary written from the decision, checked July 26, 2026.

New Jersey Supreme Court (2)
  • 99 N.J. 1; 489 A.2d 11451985
  • 127 N.J. 555; 606 A.2d 367
Appellate Division (2)
  • , No. A-0306-06T5
  • In the Matter of Williams198 N.J.Super. 75; 486 A.2d 858
Superior Court (3)
  • O'Lone v. Department of Human Services357 N.J. Super. 170; 814 A.2d 665
  • Walcott v. City of Plainfield282 N.J.Super. 121; 659 A.2d 532
  • DelRossi v. Department of Human Services (Police)256 N.J.Super. 286; 606 A.2d 1128
Civil Service Commission final determinations (101)
  • In re Ugorji, Newark Sch. Distr., OAL Docket No. CSV 06917-24
  • In re Ragsdale, Atlantic City Dep't of Muni. Auth., CSC Docket No. 2025-1377Docket 2025-1377
  • In re Woodson, Newark Mayor's Dep't, CSC Docket No. 2025-1031Docket 2025-1031
  • In re S.A. Northern State Prison, Dep't of Corr., CSC Docket No. 2024-1673Docket 2024-1673
  • In re Christopher Ferro, Bergen Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CSC Docket No. 2025-61Docket 2025-61cites (d), (d)4
  • In re Nolen, Roselle, Dep't of Pub. Works, CSC Docket No. 2023-925Docket 2023-925
  • In re O.C., et al., Twp. of West Orange, CSC Docket Nos. 2023-492, et al. (Consolidated)Docket 2023-492
  • In re Snyder, Marlboro, Police Dep'tDocket CSV 08663-16
  • In re Peterson, Greystone Park Psychiatric Ctr., Dep't of HealthDocket CSV 04312-21
  • Civil Service Commission. In re Ferro, Bergen Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CSC Docket No. 2022-1819Docket 2022-1819
  • In re Smirnov, Dep't of the Treas., Div. of Inv.Docket CSV 07719-19
  • In re Carroll, Twp. of West Orange, CSC Docket Nos. 2022-516Docket 2022-516
  • CSR 13401-19)
  • In re Melendez, Dep't of Corr., CSC DKT. NO. 2016-3473
  • In re Stuiso, Bergen Cnty., Dep't of Pub. Works, CSC DKT. NO. 2019-2591
  • In re Navas, CSC DKT. NO. 2021-1503
  • In re Martin, East Orange Police Dep't, CSC Docket No. 2021-628Docket 2021-628
  • In re Dye, City of Passaic, Dep't of Eng'gDocket CSV 13516-18
  • In re Marsh, Twp. of West Orange, CSC Docket Nos. 2021-984Docket 2021-984
  • In re Bermudez, Cumberland Cnty. Dep't of Corrs.Docket CSR 07412-20
  • In re Card, Kean Univ.Docket CSV 17773-19
  • In re O.C., Police Officer (S9999U), City of Elizabeth, CSC Docket No. 2021-332Docket 2021-332
  • In re McKnight, City of Newark, CSC Docket No. 2021-686Docket 2021-686
  • In re Montanez, Hudson Cnty., Dep't of Roads & Pub.Prop., CSC DKT. NO. 2020-1917
  • In re Morales, Newark Sch. Dist., CSC Docket No. 2020-2659Docket 2020-2659
  • In re Martin, City of East Orange Police Dep'tDocket CSV 16115-19
  • In re Albis, Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., CSC Docket No. 2019-2547Docket 2019-2547
  • In re Hendrickson, Jr., Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, CSC Docket No. 2019-1725Docket 2019-1725cites (a)
  • In re Flynn, Monmouth Cnty., Dep't of Transp.Docket CSV 13685-15
  • In re Able, City of Newark, CSC Docket No. 2018-3594Docket 2018-3594
  • PNDA. In re Graves, Newark, CSC Docket No. 2019-1974Docket 2019-1974
  • In re Robinson, Albert C. Wagner Youth Corr. Facility, Dep't of Corrs.Docket CSV 11292-17
  • In re Barnes, Monmouth Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2019-205Docket 2019-205
  • In re Raciti, Middlesex Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2018-3711Docket 2018-3711
  • In re Mulligan, East Jersey State Prison, Dep't of Corrs., CSC DKT. NO. 2017-2469Docket CSV 02610-17
  • In re Reyes, City of Paterson, OAL Docket No. CSR 03407-17
  • In re Jenkins, CSC Docket No. 2018-1038, OAL Docket No. CSV 15785-2017Docket 2018-1038
  • In re Curtis, Dep't of Children & FamiliesDocket CSV 8037-16
  • In re Wine, Jersey City Pub. Library, CSC Docket No. 2016-4015Docket 2016-4015
  • In re Maisano, Aberdeen Twp., CSC Docket No. 2016-2614, OAL Docket No. CSV 03222-16Docket 2016-2614
  • In re Gomm, CSC Docket No. 2016-3502, OAL Docket No. CSV 02360-17Docket 2016-3502
  • In re Lemieux, Trenton Psychiatric Hosp., CSC Docket No. 2018-977Docket 2018-977
  • In re Gauthier, Rockaway Twp., CSC Docket No. 2017-2766Docket 2017-2766
  • In re Robles, City of Newark, CSC Docket No. 2017-3779Docket 2017-3779
  • In re Wilson, CSC Docket No. 2017-3166Docket 2017-3166
  • In re Kraft, Hudson Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CSC Docket No. 2017-2722Docket 2017-2722
  • In re Jarpa, Dep't of Mil. Affairs, Veterans Haven Transitional Home, CSC DKT. NO. 2016-1783
  • In re Reyes, Hudson Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2017-521Docket 2017-521
  • $ 34,862. In re Montella, CSC Docket No. 2016-2558Docket 2016-2558
  • In re Tyndall, City of East Orange, Dep't of Property Taxation, CSC DKT. NOs. 2013-733 & 2013-3452 (Consolidated)
  • In re Hairston, City of East Orange, CSC Docket No. 2017-145Docket 2017-145
  • In re Jeanpierre, North Jersey Developmental Ctr., Dep't of Human Servs., CSC DKT. NO. 2014-2755
  • In re Gandolfo, Twp. of West Orange, Dep't of Planning & Dev., CSC DKT. NO. 2015-2330
  • In re McGee, Dep't of Corrs., CSC Dkt. No. 2015-1717
  • In re Wimbush, Dep't of Human Servs., CSC Dkt. No. 2014-923
  • In re Rosenberger, CSC Docket No. 2013-2723Docket 2013-2723
  • In re Bush, N.J. Dep't. of Corrs., East Jersey State PrisonDocket CSR 14630-13
  • In re Ortiz, Hudson Cty., CSC Docket No. 2012-2997Docket 2012-2997
  • In re Reedinger, Middlesex Cty., CSC Docket No. 2014-1491Docket 2014-1491
  • In re Bessie McDalton, CSC Docket No. 2014-991Docket 2014-991
  • In re Hopkins, Mercer Cnty.
  • In re Huntley, OAL Docket No. CSV 12847-12
  • In re Burdsall, Judiciary, Vicinage 15 -- Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem (Consolidated), OAL Docket Nos. CSV 15226-11 and CSV 558-13
  • In re Zygmunt Krawczyk, Juvenile Justice Comm'm, CSC Dkt. No. 2014-256cites (d)
  • In re Robert Rivera, Passaic CountyDocket CSV 06927-11
  • In re Joseph Graffagnino, Middlesex Cnty.Docket CSR 9216-13
  • In re Donna Jackson, Hudson Cnty., CSC DKT. No. 2014-1226
  • In re Reedinger, Middlesex Cnty., Dep't. of Adult Corr., CSC Dkt. No. 2013-3155
  • In re Pedulla, Monmouth Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2011-5039, OAL Docket No. CSV 9154-11Docket 2011-5039
  • In re Morris, CSC Docket No. 2013-2927Docket 2013-2927
  • In re Bowman, Newark, CSC Docket No. 2013-1085Docket 2013-1085cites (d)4.iv
  • In re Brandis Puryear, CSC Dkt. No. 2013-285Docket CSV 11114-12
  • In re Shawn PressleyDocket CSV 05761-2012
  • In re Linda Tisby, Camden Cnty., CSC Dkt. No. 2013-1166
  • In re John Venables, Jr., City of Camden, CSC Dkt. No. 2010-1283Docket CSV 10418-09
  • In re David Williams, CSC Dkt. No. 2012-24522013 N.J. CSC Lexis 565cites (d)3
  • In re Robert Zorn, Mercer County, CSC Dkt. No. 2011-404
  • In re Taylor, CSC Docket No. 2012-3190Docket 2012-3190cites (d)
  • In re James Gillespie, Cnty. of Cape May, OAL Docket No. CSV 4752-12
  • In re Scott Haynes, OAL Docket No. CSV 4367-12
  • In re Stephen Phillips, Twp. of West Orange, CSC Dkt. No. 2012-1029
  • In re Michelle Taylor, Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, CSC Docket No. 2012-3286Docket 2012-3286cites (d)
  • In re Daniel Caetano, City of NewarkDocket CSV 13338-11
  • In re Vincent De Ponte, Monmouth Cnty.Docket CSV 5497-12
  • In re Mark Lyszczak, CSC Docket No. 2012-1651Docket 2012-1651cites (d)1
  • In re Wade Rosenberger, CSC Dkt.. No. 2012-3046
  • In re FordDocket CSV 12530-08
  • Harrington v. Dep't of Human Services11 N.J.A.R. 5371989
  • Ward v. Department of Labor97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 180
  • Naro v. Trenton Fire Department96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 234
  • Finley v. Wagner Youth Correctional Facility95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 676
  • Bellamy v. Essex County Hospital95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 652
  • Gonzalez v. Essex County95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 200
  • Takakjian v. Fairview Borough Board of Education93 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 184
  • Scouler v. Housing Services and Code Enforcement, City of Camden93 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 40
  • Amison v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection92 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 568
  • Kelly v. City of Camden92 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 537
  • Brantley v. New Jersey State Prison92 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 37
  • Holmes v. Essex County91 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 65
  • Valluzzi v. Bergen County10 N.J.A.R. 89
Office of Administrative Law initial decisions (30)
  • In re Ganopolous, Ocean Cnty. Dep't of Roads, OAL Docket No. CSV 15827-17
  • Rule of Three. In re Alemany et al., Fire Captain (PM1051V), Paterson, OAL Docket No. CSV 13150-18 (Consolidated)
  • In re Peterson, Greystone Park Psychiatric Ctr., Dep't of Health [Stockton Univ.]Docket CSV 04312-21
  • In re Brown, Salem City Police Dep't, OAL Docket No. CSV 04702-19
  • In re Spellman, Atlantic Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs.
  • In re Bermudez, Cumberland Cnty. Dep't of Corrs.Docket CSR 07412-20
  • In re Arocho-Ramos East Jersey State Prison, Dep't of Corrs.Docket CSR 12477-19
  • In re Ruggiero, Camden Cnty., Dep't of Fin.Docket CSV 01778-19
  • In re Pharo, Atlantic Cnty. Dep't of Pub. SafetyDocket CSR 15785-19
  • In re Sanchez, Town of West N.Y., Dep't of Parks & Pub. Prop.Docket CSV 05728-18
  • In re Rivera, Essex Cnty. Dep't of Corrs.
  • Jones-Richardson v. City of East Orange, Dep't of Property Maint. RevitalizationDocket CSV 08152-17
  • In re Johnson, Mercer Cnty. Corr. Ctr.Docket CSV 2550-17
  • In re Lindsey Newark Police Dep't.Docket CSV 10680-12
  • In re Marino, Dep't of Children & FamiliesDocket CSV 16936-15
  • In re Irby, Burlington Cnty. Dep't of Corrs.Docket CSR 01662-15
  • In re Eatman, City of NewarkDocket CSV 09544-09
  • In re Hill, Twp. of Lakewood, Dep't of Public WorksDocket CSV 09021-14
  • In re Nemeth, Morris Cty. Dep't of Utils. Auth.Docket CSV 01031-14
  • In re Turbeville, Dep't of Human Servs., OAL Docket No. CSV 16531-13
  • In re BellamyDocket CSV 8866-06
  • In re Delli SantiDocket CSV 11901-07
  • In re Abdul-HaqqDocket CSV 9385-03
  • In re ParisDocket CSV 12208-06cites (c)2
  • In Re Griffin-Staples, Dept. of Children and FamiliesDocket CSV8810-07
  • In re Grupico, Burlington Cty., and in re McLeod, Burlington Cty.Docket CSV2489-06
  • In re MortimerDocket CSV 6378-05
  • In re RussoDocket CSV 11729-03
  • In re MartinDocket CSV 6599-03

Commission decisions citing 4A:2-2.10

238 decisions of the Civil Service Commission since January 16, 2019 cite this section (penalty modified 90, penalty reversed 71, denied 20, as the minutes record the outcome). The newest:

All 238 decisions

This rule points to

Rules that point here

Elsewhere in Major Discipline