Home modifications can be a very important, yet expensive,
benefit available to injured workers. A New Jersey Appellate Court again
reviewed the standard of proof for home modifications required to accommodate
disabled workers. In doing so The Court
linked the need for medical evidence to be supported medical evidence
when the improvement of mental health of the disabled worker is at issue.
The standard of proof, was enunciated almost 3 decades by
the NJ Supreme Court :
“Where the surroundings
of the petitioner must be modified in order to accommodate his physical
handicap, the court has required that the employer be responsible for making
the adaptations. Not only is the physical well-being of the injured worker
taken into consideration, but his mental state is considered as well. In
the Squeo case, the
employer was required to pay for the construction of an accessible apartment as
an addition to the premises of the injured worker’s parents’ home.” Squeo v. Comfort Control Corp., 194 N.J.Super.
366, 476 A.2d 1265 (App.Div.1984), aff’d 99 N.J. 588, 494 A.2d 313 (1985), N.J. Prac., Workers’ Compensation Law § 15.3 (3d ed.)
A partially paralyzed and wheelchair bound disabled worker
requested home modifications of his residence to include: expansion of the
kitchen, raising the family room floor, installation of a lift platform and an
elevator. The employer contested several aspects including the installation of
an elevator.
No medical evidence was offered by way of expert testimony
to causally related the improvement of the injured workers’ mental health with
the installation of an elevator to continue with such hobbies as woodworking.
While the Compensation Judge made two on-site visits, and even though the
respondent wasn’t diligent in timely requesting expert medical testimony
regarding the issue, a lack of findings on the causal relationship between the
need for the elevator installation necessitated a reversal of the Compensation
Judge’s order as to the elevator.
The Court
rationalized that…” While the elevator would appear to be beneficial, there is
nothing in the record to demonstrate that it is "necessary" and its
cost "reasonable" as those terms are used in Squeo. Ibid. The
compensation judge was required to reach a decision consistent with Squeo,
which "cautioned" that it is "only the unusual case that may
warrant . . . extraordinary relief." Id. at 604. Based on the current
state of the law, as set forth in Squeo, and the present record, we cannot
agree that Loeber demonstrated that the elevator was "necessary."
The case was remanded to the Division of Workers’ Compensation
so that the specific the remodeling could be resolved.
