top step of a staircase after some bricks gave way. Id. at 557, 570 A.2d 456. The Barney panel held that the Quigley analysis of traumatic event was dictum; that it did not properly account for the legislative intent to narrow accidental disability benefits; and that it conflicted with Kane, Maynard, and Ciecwisz. Id. at 558, 570 A.2d 456. The Barney panel distinguished the case before it from Kane’s example of falling off the top step of a ladder, concluding that Barney’s fall down stairs was not a great rush of force because it was “not comparable to the direct and unbroken fall of an individual from a considerable height with its attendant gravitational forces.” Id. at 559, 570 A.2d 456 s Ret. Sys., 394 N.J.Super. 478, 481, 927 A.2d 560, 562, 2007 WL 2004943 at *1 (App.Div.2007) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the Appellate Division itself has
holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met holding finger deeply stuck by hypodermic needle in suspects pocket did not satisfy standard holding that an applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard holding that we will not consider an argument of plain error where the defendant has neither mentioned the plainerror standard nor made any attempt to show how he can satisfy that standard