there are some examples that are relevant to this analysis. Published authority from our Appellate Division has generally concluded that medical conditions meet the extraordinary circumstances standard if they are severe or debilitating. See, e.g., Mendez v. So. Jersey Transp. Auth., 416 N.J.Super. 525, 533, 6 A.3d 484 (App.Div.2010) (relying in part on injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident that required hospitalization); R.L. v. State-Operated, School Dist., 387 N.J.Super. 331, 341, 903 A.2d 1110 (App.Div.2006) (finding extraordinary circumstances test met by high school student who contracted HIV infection from sexual relationship with teacher and who was preoccupied with thoughts of death); Maher v. Cnty. of Mercer, 384 N.J.Super. 182, 189-90, 894 A2.d 100 (App.Div. 2006) (<HOLDING>). The consistent theme of these decisions is
holding that plaintiff cook at a nursing home had sufficiently pled requisite public policy and a close fit where she alleged she was fired for expressing concerns that a fellow employee was contaminating the area where she was preparing food holding on rehearing that exclusion for disabilities caused by a preexisting medical condition would not support denial of benefits caused by staph infection resulting from surgery for a preexisting condition holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex recognizing that medical condition of cook who contracted staph infection that was so severe that she was treated by induced coma and not expected to survive sufficed for extraordinary circumstances test holding that plaintiff who disputed her gas bill and refused to pay it could not establish that she was induced to take any action to her detriment