Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query dismissals. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query dismissals. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Asbestos Manufacture Garlock Files for Bankruptcy Protection



Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, a former manufacturer of asbestos products (The Anchor Packing Company), announced that it has taken a step toward a permanent resolution of asbestos-related personal injury claims against the company. Today, Garlock filed a voluntary petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.


Asbestos has been used for insulation properties. It is a known cancer causing agent and responsible for causing asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.


For the past 35 years Garlock has defended its liability in asbestos claims. Garlock has processed more than 900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments, settlements and dismissals) and, together with its insurers, has paid over $1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and over $400 million in fees and expenses.


Garlock manufactured asbestos containing gaskets, pipe joints, values and other equipment.


Garlock will operate in the ordinary course under court protection from asbestos claimants while in the claims resolution process available under Chapter 11. All pending litigation against Garlock will be stayed as the company seeks to develop and implement a court-approved plan to permanently resolve all asbestos-related claims. Garlock plans to negotiate with representatives of asbestos claimants to establish a trust to pay all valid claims. Absent a negotiated resolution, Garlock intends to ask the court to determine the amount necessary to fund the trust.


Click here to read more about asbestos related disease and claims for benefits. For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered asbestos related illnesses.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Delay To Reinstate For Tactical Reasons Not Excuseable

The NJ Court of Appeals did not permit reinstatement of a dismissed claim where the claimant's attorney waited more than one year following the entry of a dismissal for lack of prosecution. While the NJ case law permits discretion by the Judge of Compensation to reinstate a claim, the Court upheld the trial court's decision of not allowing reinstatement.


"Here, there was no impediment to the filing of a timely motion for reinstatement for nearly the entire one-year statutory period. Despite the considerable age of most of the petitions in question, and despite the fact that they still were not capable of being moved due to petitioner's failure to provide discovery, petitioner here did nothing but adopt a deliberate course of delay, choosing to expend as much of the one-year period as possible without taking action. The fact that petitioner's attorney's unanticipated illness proved untimely and struck at a critical moment is of no consequence. Even if counsel's inactivity between September 7 and October 3, 2008 was excusable, his conscious and deliberate inaction from September 27, 2007 until September 6, 2008 was inexcusable. An attorney's neglect or inadvertence is not ground for relief pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(a). See, e.g., Baumann v. Marinaro, 95 N.J. 380, 394 (1984); Quagliato v. Bodner, 115 N.J. Super. 133, 138 (App. Div. 1971)."

Friday, July 30, 2021

NJ Division of Workers’ Compensation Announces Limited in-person Proceedings Effective August 16, 2021

Effective Monday, August 16, 2021, the N.J. Division of Workers’ Compensation shall implement a cautious return to normal operations with the resumption of limited in-person proceedings and an increase of on-site presence of workers’ compensation judges and court staff as set forth below.  

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Where is the Deep Water?

NJ Appellate Court allowed the assertion of a workers' compensation statutory lien against a liability award (NJSA 34:15-40), where the compensation insurance company paid the initial medical benefits without prejudice following a detailed dismissal by the Compensation Court before trial. This decision has far reaching consequences in defining when, on the timeline,  an insurance carrier's actions should trigger responsibility.

Workers' Compensation was designed as a summary and expeditious system paying injured workers who suffer an injury or illness at work. The benefits of treatment and temporary disability benefits are triggered by the event or manifestation of injury, and should flow quickly to the injured worker without a long, burdensome, and litigious process.

The payment of  major medical benefits by an employer, in the past, under The Sheffield Doctrine, has been considered to act as an estoppel, barring the denial of the compensation claim. The NJ Legislature modified its Workers' Compensation Act several decades ago, and allowed for the payment of medical benefits, without prejudice. The consequence  is that the injured worker is lulled into a sense of false security relying upon the implied acceptance of compensability. Albeit, the payment extends the statute of limitation for filing a formal claim.

The Court's dismissal, in the Greene matter, barring the assertion of the lien by the workers' compensation insurance company, was reversed and the lien enforced from the liability award.

Interestingly, the Court did not note that the technique of ordinary settlement, by payment of unauthorized medical payments, and/or for waiver of the right to appeal, was a common practice before the legislative enactment of NJSA 34:15-20. AIG in this case chose to "have your cake and eat it too."

Historically, prior to the legislative enactment of lump sum payments, pursuant to NJSA 34:15-20, voluntary dismissals were utilized as vehicle to compromise dependency, and other claims, for settlement. In those instances, following the dismissal of the workers' compensation claim, the parties would enter into a settlement, albeit a fiction, to settlement of the right to appeal and a letter of payment would be exchanged and/or a Release would be executed. Any potential was extinguished.

Beside the increased necessity of reducing the dismissal terms to writing, and/or stipulation of dismissal, the issue is generated of far the insurance company can step into the deep water before it comes committed to a decision. The Legislature needs to revisit this issue, and redefine the timeline for irrevocable commitment of responsibility, otherwise the initial Legislative intent for an expeditious, remedial administrative system will be defeated.

KELLY GREENE v AIG CASUALTY COMPANY, 
NJ App Div 2013 (Decided October 16, 2016) --- A.3d ----, 2013 WL 5629045 (N.J.Super.A.D.)

….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

CDC Coronavirus Guidance Sets a Standard for Employer Responsibility and Liability

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] has issued an interim guidance based on what is currently known about the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The guidance sets out a plan of  containment initially, and if that fails, mitigation of the spread of this very contagious and potentially fatal disease. If employers follow the guidance, in all likelihood workers' compensation issues will arise as to the payment of temporary and medical benefits following from occupational exposure at work to the COVID-19.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

OSHA Fines Norfolk Southern Railway $800,000 for Terminating Injured Workers

Norfolk Southern 8921 GE C40-9W (Dash 9-40CW)
Norfolk Southern 8921 GE C40-9W (Dash 9-40CW) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Investigation found violations of Federal Railroad Safety Act whistleblower provisions
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has found that Norfolk Southern Railway Co. violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act and consequently has ordered the company to pay three whistleblowers $802,168.70 in damages, including $525,000 in punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Additionally, the company has been ordered to expunge the disciplinary records of the whistleblowers, post workplace notices regarding railroad employees' whistleblower protection rights and provide training to its employees about these rights.
Three concurrent investigations were completed by OSHA's offices in Columbia, S.C.; Nashville, Tenn.; and Harrisburg, Pa. The investigations revealed reasonable cause to believe that the employees' reporting of their workplace injuries led to internal investigations and, ultimately, to dismissals from the company.
A laborer based in Greenville, S.C., was terminated on Aug. 14, 2009, after reporting an injury as a result of being hit by the company's gang truck. The railroad charged the employee, a laborer, with improper performance of duties. OSHA found that the employee was treated disparately in comparison to four other employees involved in the incident. The laborer was the only employee injured and, thus, the only employee who reported an injury. He also was the only employee terminated. OSHA has ordered the railroad to pay punitive damages of $200,000 as well as compensatory damages of $110,852 and attorney's fees of $14,325.
In Louisville, Ky., an engineer at a Norfolk Southern facility was terminated on March 31, 2010, after reporting an injury as a result of tripping and falling in a locomotive restroom. The railroad, after an investigative hearing, charged the employee with falsifying his injury. OSHA found that the investigative hearing was flawed and orchestrated to intentionally support the decision to terminate the employee. OSHA has ordered the railroad to pay the employee $150,000 in punitive damages, $50,000 in compensatory damages and $7,375 in attorney's fees.
On July 22, 2010, a railroad conductor based in Harrisburg, Pa., was terminated after reporting a head injury sustained when he blacked out and fell down steps while returning from the locomotive lavatory. The company, after an investigative hearing presided over by management officials, found the employee guilty of falsifying a report of a work-related injury, failing to promptly report the injury, and making false and conflicting statements. The day before the injury, the employee had been lauded for excellent performance, highlighted by no lost work time due to injuries in his 35-year career. OSHA found that the investigative hearing was flawed, and there was no evidence the employee intended to misrepresent his injury. OSHA is ordering the railroad to pay the employee $175,000 in punitive damages, $76,623.27 in back wages plus interest and $17,993.43 in compensatory damages, as well as all fringe benefits.
"Firing workers for reporting an injury is not only illegal, it also endangers all workers. When workers are discouraged from reporting injuries, no investigation into the cause of an injury can occur," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "To prevent more injuries, railroad workers must be able to report an injury without fear of retaliation. The Labor Department will continue to protect all employees, including those in the railroad industry, from retaliation for exercising these basic worker rights. Employers found in violation will be held accountable."
These actions follow several other orders issued by OSHA against Norfolk Southern Railway Co. in the past year. OSHA's investigations have found that the company continues to retaliate against employees for reporting work-related injuries and has effectively created a chilling effect in the railroad industry.
Any party to this case can file an appeal with the Labor Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges.
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. is a major transporter/hauler of coal and other commodities, serving every major container port in the eastern United States with connections to western carriers. Its headquarters are in Norfolk, Va., and it employs more than 30,000 union workers worldwide.
OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the FRSA and 20 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various securities laws, trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, rail, maritime, health care, workplace safety and health regulations, and consumer product safety laws.
Under the various whistleblower provisions enacted by Congress, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or to the government. Employees who believe that they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor for an investigation by OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program. Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights, including fact sheets, is available online at http://www.whistleblowers.gov.
Note: The U.S. Department of Labor does not release names of employees involved in whistleblower complaints.