Exclusivity Rule Adopted in MDL Aviation Law Case

Continental Connection Bombarder Q400 operated by Colgan Air
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

In a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case pending in New York, a Federal Court ruled that the New Jersey law governing exclusivity of claims barred an employee from proceeding with an intentional tort claim against the employer. Despite the fact that the fatal plane crash occurred in New York, the Court adopted New Jersey law since the the employer was based in New Jersey, the employee was based in New Jersey and workers' compensation benefits were being paid under New Jersey law by a New Jersey based and claims unit in New Jersey.


The Exclusivity Doctrine bars an employee from filing a claim against his or her employer outside of workers' compensation. There are some limited exceptions to that rule such as intentional actions by the employer such as concealment of medical information and gross negligence. The workers' compensation act in the overwhelming majority of claims supersedes common law actions in tort and is the exclusive remedy for an injured worker against an employer. Dudley v. Victor Lynn Lines, Inc., 32 N.J. 479, 161 A.2d 479 (1960).  Kristiansen v. Morgan et al., 153 N.J. 298, 708 A.2d 1173 (1998).




The Court reasoned that under a New York conflict-of-laws analysis, the State of New Jersey, rather than New York, had a greater interest in the case. since the plaintiff failed to meet the two prong NJ test to circumvent the NJ exclusivity rule, the case was dismissed. 


In re Air Crash Near Clarence Center New York on February 12, 2009 v. Colgan Air, Inc., et al., # 09-md-2085, 10CV-10078, 2012 WL 1029530 (W.D.N.Y.) March 26, 2012

....
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 work related accident and injuries.

More on The Exclusivity Rule

Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule

Jun 13, 2012

Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule. English: Motor vehicle accident following a ve... A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the

Jun 27, 2012

Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the Exclusivity Doctrine. "New Jersey's Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128.5, provides a prompt and efficient remedy for an employee's ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: Exclusivity Doctrine Shields an Employer ...

Apr 09, 2010

A Federal Judge, who is managing the Multi-District Asbestos Litigation, has ruled that the exclusivity doctrine defeats the application of the dual capacity doctrine where the manufacturer's corporation was merged into the ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

NJ Supreme Court To Rule on Several Critical Issues

Apr 23, 2012

The Exclusivity Rule: Under the circumstances of this case, which include a finding by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration that the accident was the result of a “willful violation” of its regulations, did the ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Related articles

• Path to Federalization: A National Workers Compensation System--US Supreme Court Validates

  ---

• Aging Population Requires More Attention

  ---

• Overwork A Recognized Compensable Condition

  ---

Football Concussions – An Epidemic Failure of Safety

Story after story is now emerging of the tragedy of head concussions incurred during the sport of football. While the a battle is brewing over jurisdictional issues involving filing Workers’ Compensation claims in the State of California, a larger epidemic of product liability claims is now emerging against Riddell, the major manufacturer of football helmets.

The Sacramento Bee reported a sad story about Dan the Morann, the former San Francisco 49ers first draft pick, who suffered from tragic dementia.

One would think that workers’ compensation had some economic incentive to provide a safer workplace. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The workers’ compensation system was crafted  as a social insurance program to provide benefits to workers who were injured in the course of their employment, and a summary and expeditious fashion.  The cost of safety was never placed into the economic equation for workers’ compensation. 

The cost of workers’ compensation is theoretically to be passed upon the consumer as a cost of doing business. It is not a tool to encourage a safe workplace.

On the other hand, the civil justice system affords injured workers and their families another avenue to seek benefits by assessing punitive damages against the manufacturer suppliers and distributors of unsafe products. Unfortunately, very few jurisdictions permit claims against employers to circumvent the exclusive bar incorporated into most state workers’ compensation acts.

Perhaps, it is time to rethink the Worker’s Compensation program entirely and place it into a medical care delivery system that  really works and utilize the civil litigation system as a tool to enhance safety in the workplace to prevent future accidents from happening.

....
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ, helping injured workers and their families for over 4 decades, is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). 

Read more about the “exclusivity bar” and Worker’s Compensation

Workers' Compensation: Exclusivity Rule Adopted in MDL Aviation ...

Jul 11, 2012

In a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case pending in New York, a Federal Court ruled that the New Jersey law governing exclusivity of claims barred an employee from proceeding with an intentional tort claim against the ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule - Workers ...

Jun 13, 2012

Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule. English: Motor vehicle accident following a ve... A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: Exclusivity Doctrine Shields an Employer ...

Apr 09, 2010

A Federal Judge, who is managing the Multi-District Asbestos Litigation, has ruled that the exclusivity doctrine defeats the application of the dual capacity doctrine where the manufacturer's corporation was merged into the ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough ...

Jun 27, 2012

Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the Exclusivity Doctrine. "New Jersey's Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128.5, provides a prompt and efficient remedy for an employee's ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/ 

Related articles

• Statement from the Maquiladora Health and Safety Support Network On the Bangladesh Factory Fires and What's Needed to Prevent Them
• Breast cancer risk in relation to occupations with exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors
• The "New Normal," Special Compensation Funds and Viability
• NJ Company Found Guilty of Dumping Asbestos into Wetlands in Upstate New York

Payment under section 20 invokes the exclusivity bar even if the employer is uninsured

A lump sum payment under Section 20 of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation law is deemed to be an employee’s complete surrender of rights and therefore it is the exclusive remedy and bars a negligence action.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Exclusivity Doctrine Not a Bar to Asbestos Claim Against an Employer Directly If Late Manifestation

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court permitted a civil action to go forward against an employer where the employee was exposed to asbestos fiber and contracted mesothelioma. The Court ruled that the latent manifestation, after the 300 week statutory period had lapsed and the Exclusivity Doctrine was not applicable.

The court held, "that claims for occupational disease which manifests outside of the 300-week period prescribed by the Act do not fall within the purview of the Act, and, therefore, that the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a) does not apply to preclude an employee from filing a common law claim against an employer."

Tooley v AK Steel Corporation
No. 21 WAO 2011, No. 22 WAP 20111, No. 23 WAP 2011
2013 Pa. LEXIS 2816
Decided: November 22, 2013

Ed Note: My thanks to Judge David B. Torrey for sharing this decision. Note the reference in the  Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Saylor:
"8 David B. Torrey & Andrew E. Greenberg, Pennsylvania
Workers' Compensation Law & Practice §14.10 (3d ed. 2011) (expressing that Section 301(c)(2)'s time 
limitation constitutes a "substantive prerequisite to ascertainment of the compensability," intended 
to "establish, via arbitrary time basis, some outside limit to govern the potential  [*64] liability of the 
employer"). Accordingly, I would hold that the 300-week limitation in Section 301(c)(2) has no effect on 
whether a worker's occupational disease comes within the WCA's coverage. As such, the exclusivity 
mandate appearing in Section 303(a) of the statute applies, in my view, to preclude Plaintiffs from 
maintaining a negligence-based lawsuit against Employers.16"

….

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.

Related articles

• The Next Wave: N.H.L. Players Sue League Over Head Injuries (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Where is the Deep Water? (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• South Lanarkshire Council asbestos ruling 'ends uncertainty' (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Court Holds a Misstatement Does Not Bar Compensability (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Hip Replacement Lawsuit: ASR Settlement ($2.5 Billion) Benefits Announced (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Occupational pulmonary case dismissed by court for lack of evidence (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Black lung injury not compensable because company was OSHA-compliant (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Workers' Comp will cover hijacked UPS driver with PTSD (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Parking Constitutes Arrival at Work

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A NJ Court of Appeals in a definitive statement about off-premises injuries, strongly affirmed the rule that when an employee arrives at am employer designated parking lot, the employee arrives at work. Even though the employee had exited the vehicle, and was injured while on a public street, the employer was held liable for the injuries under the workers' compensation act.

"Hence, we agree with the judge that when petitioner parked her car in the assigned garage, she was not coming to work, she had arrived there."

CHERYL HERSH, Petitioner–Respondent, 

v. 

COUNTY OF MORRIS, Respondent–Appellant,  

DOCKET NO. A–1442–10T4 

2012 WL 3000329 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2012) Decided 7/24/12.

More on Parking Lot Cases

Workers' Compensation: Parking Lot Injuries Are Compensable

Jan 09, 2012

The situation becomes more complicated when the employee is involved in an accident in a parking lot not owned or controlled by the employer. In those instances the courts traditionally look to whether the employer directed ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Exclusivity Rule Adopted in MDL Aviation Law Case

Jul 11, 2012

Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule. English: Motor vehicle accident following a ve... A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had.

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule

Jun 13, 2012

A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had commenced for the day, limited the injured workers' recovery to workers' compensation benefits.

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: Workers Compensation Act Does Not Bar A ...

May 17, 2011

The injured employee was employed by Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. and slipped on black ice in the parking lot. The employee filed and claimed benefits from the employer in workers' compensation. Additionally, the ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Related articles

• Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule

  ---

• Workers Compensation Rates in New York to Decrease

  ---

• Sign of the Times: Fragrance Free Workplace

  ---

Exclusivity Rule: Police Officer Hired to Direct Traffic Was a Special Employee-Unpublished Opinion

A municipal police officer who was hired by a contractor to direct traffic at a construction site was determined to be a “special employee” and barred from suing a co-worker of the construction company. The NJ Appellate Court has held, in an unpublished opinion*, the  “Exclusivity Rule” barred the institution of a civil action against a co-worker.

The Exclusivity Rule Does Not Bar Claims of a Minor

A minor may elect to file a negligence action against an employer and not be prohibited by the Exclusivity Rule that typically bars employee claims against their employers.

Dual Employment Status Bars Double Recovery

An employee may have dual employers but ultimately can only receive a single recovery from only one employer for work-related injuries. The “exclusivity doctrine,” permitting a complete recovery of damages against an employer, limits an injured worker’s benefit recovery to the compensation system, barring an intentional tort.

Exclusivity Doctrine Shields an Employer-Manufacturer From Liability in Mesothelioma Claim

A Federal Judge, who is managing the Multi-District Asbestos Litigation, has ruled that the exclusivity doctrine defeats the application of the dual capacity doctrine where the manufacturer's corporation was merged into the employer's corporation. 


The employee was hired by Hewlett-Packard (HP) in 1966 which merged into Agilent Technologies in 1999. In 1966 the employee, while working for HP, worked on asbestos containing products manufactured by F&M Scientific Company (F&M). F&M was acquired by HP in 1965. The employee ceased work in 2001 and ultimately died of mesothelioma on April 7, 2007.


The court reasoned that dual capacity, while it is an exception to the exclusivity doctrine, is not easily obtained.  The economic reality, the court reasoned, is that both companies were the same corporate entity due to the merger of the businesses. 


The Judge held that, "Workers’ compensation must remain the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained in the course of employment. When a corporate entity is simultaneously an employer and a manufacturer of harmful products, workers’ compensation serves to limit its tort liability with respect to its employees." 


Shamir v. Agilent, et al., MDL 875, Civil Action 08-76816, Decided April 5, 2010.


Click here to read about asbestos litigation.

NJ Supreme Court to Review Application of Exclusivity Rule Between Social Remedial Legislation Acts

The NJ Supreme Court will review two social remedial legislative acts to determine whether the Exclusivity Rule is applicable. The workplace legislation is the Law Against Discrimination [LAD] and the Workers’ Compensation Act [WCA]. The Court will determine whether a LAD claim is barred by the exclusive remedy of the WCA. Mary Richter, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Oakland Board of Education, C-234 Sept.Term 2019, 2019 WL 5847242, Petition for Certification Granted NOVEMBER 4, 2019

NJ Supreme Court Bars Expansion of Injured Workers Remedies

Additional tort claim disallowed against insurance companies for intentional failure to comply with court of compensation's, an administrative agency, order to provide provide benefits.

Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640)
Argued 3/26/12 Decided 8/1/12 see http://tinyurl.com/d4pycqw

SYLLABUS 

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court.  It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the 

convenience of the reader.  It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court.  Please note that, in the 

interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.) 

Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (A-112-10) (067640) 

Argued March 26, 2012 -- Decided August 1, 2012

HOENS, J., writing for a majority of the Court.

The Court considers whether an injured employee may sue his employer’s compensation carrier for pain and suffering caused by the carrier’s delay in paying for medical treatment, prescriptions, and other services. Plaintiff Wade Stancil was injured in 1995 while employed by Orient Originals.  He received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer’s compensation carrier, defendant ACE USA (ACE).  In 2006, following a  trial, the court of compensation determined that Stancil was totally disabled.  In 2007, Stancil filed a motion in the compensation court seeking an order compelling ACE to pay outstanding medical bills.  

During a hearing on the motion, the compensation judge commented that ACE had a history of failing to make payments when ordered to do so.  On September 12, 2007, the compensation judge granted Stancil’s motion, warned ACE against any further violation of the order to pay, and awarded Stancil counsel fees.  On October 29, 2007, the parties returned to the compensation court for a further proceeding relating to the disputed bills.  After finding that the bills identified in the September 12 order remained unpaid and that ACE’s failure to make payment was a willful and intentional violation of the order, the court issued another order compelling ACE to make immediate payment and again awarding counsel fees.  

The court commented on its limited ability to ensure that carriers would comply with orders, noted that it lacked the authority to enforce orders through contempt proceedings, found that Stancil had exhausted his administrative remedies, and suggested that he seek further relief in the Superior Court.  In 2008, Stancil underwent additional surgery and psychiatric treatment.  Stancil’s physician attributed the need for additional treatment to an earlier treatment delay caused by the carrier’s delay in paying medical providers.  

On April 15, 2009, Stancil filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court.  In his complaint, Stancil claimed that ACE required him to undergo medical examinations by physicians of its own choosing and then rejected the recommendations of those physicians and refused to authorize the recommended medical care.  The complaint stated further that Stancil obtained orders from the compensation court, but ACE failed to comply.  Stancil contended that ACE’s failure to authorize needed treatment caused him unnecessary pain and suffering, a worsening of his medical condition, and expenses that should have been paid by ACE.  ACE responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint.  ACE argued that the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -142 (the Act), is the exclusive remedy for the claims pled in the complaint and therefore no damages could be awarded.  The trial court granted ACE’s motion.  The court analyzed the impact of then-recently adopted amendments to the Act and found that the Legislature had foreclosed resort to the Superior Court for the kind of tort-based relief demanded by Stancil.

The Appellate Division affirmed.  418 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2011).  The panel agreed with the trial court that The Legislature’s amendments to the Act foreclosed Stancil’s claims.  The panel also rejected Stancil’s argument that ACE’s willful disregard of compensation court orders met the Act’s intentional wrong exception to the litigation bar. The Supreme Court granted certification limited to determining whether an employee who suffered a work-related injury has a common-law cause of action for damages against a workers’ compensation carrier for its willful failure to comply with court orders compelling it to provide medical treatment when the delay or denial of treatment causes a worsening of the employee’s medical condition and/or pain and suffering.  207 N.J. 66 (2011).  

HELD:  An injured employee does not have a common law right of action against a workers’ compensation carrier for pain and suffering caused by the carrier’s delay in paying for or authorizing treatment because 1) the workers’ compensation system was designed to provide injured workers with a remedy outside of the ordinary tort or contract remedies cognizable in the Superior Court; 2) in amending the Workers’ Compensation Act in 2008, the Legislature rejected a provision that would have given the compensation courts broader permission to authorize a resort to the Superior Court and adopted a remedy that permits compensation courts to act through a contempt power; and 3) 2allowing a direct common-law cause of action against a carrier would undermine the workers’ compensation system by substituting a cause of action that would become the preferred manner of securing relief.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER, JUSTICE LaVECCHIA, and JUDGE WEFING (temporarily assigned) join  in JUSTICE HOENS’s opinion. JUSTICE ALBIN filed a separate, dissenting opinion. JUSTICE  PATTERSON did not participate.

Related Blog Articles

Workers' Compensation: Bad Faith Claims Maybe Going to the Jury

Aug 05, 2011

The lower court had rejected the case and dismissed it holding that the jurisdiction for bad faith is exclusively within the purview of the Division of Workers' Compensation. Stancil v. ACE USA, 418 N.J. Super. 79, 12 A. 3rd 223...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

NJ Supreme Court To Rule on Several Critical Issues

Apr 23, 2012

A-112-10 Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640). 3. The Exclusivity Rule: Under the circumstances of this case, which include a finding by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration that the accident was the result ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Related articles

• Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the Exclusivity Doctrine
• Exclusivity Rule Adopted in MDL Aviation Law Case
• Aging Population Requires More Attention

Over 46% of High-risk Adults Are Endangered by Workplace Exposures to SARA-CoV2

A recent study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) this week finds that workplace-exposures to SARS-CoV2 endanger, not only the workers but also imperil the lives of their household contacts. 

Published: 2011 Workers' Compensation Law Treatise

The 2011 Supplement to Gelman on Workers' Compensation Law has been published and is shipping. Now in its third edition, the 3 volume hard-bound series, provides a comprehensive analysis of workers' compensation law. Published by West Publishing, a business of Thomsom-Reuters, it is totally integrated into the West citation system and Westlaw® research system. The series and updates may be ordered in hardbound, CD-Rom and/or accessed thorough the Westlaw® research system.

What's New

The newly enacted statutory changes to the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act and promulgated Rules permitting Emergent Medical Care Motions, new registration requirements for insurers, and new judicial enforcement powers of Judges of Compensation, including sanctions and contempt powers, are contained in this supplemental material. The judicial decision imposing direct liability against an insurance carrier for delay and/or denial of medical treatment is discussed.

An analysis of the newly adopted procedures for the reimbursement of conditional payments established by Medicare and the protocols to co-ordinate workers’ compensation claims with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is contained in this supplement. The materials also provide the authorizations required to obtain conditional payment information from the Coordinator of Benefits. Debt collection referral to the Department of the Treasury is also reviewed.

The new Community and Worker Right to Know material has been incorporated into this supplement. The current hazardous substance lists and the substances that have been deemed extremely dangerous are provided.

The supplement reviews new case law concerning electronic cancellation of coverage as well as the standard for claims to be considered casually related to the employment.

The judicial interpretation of the Exclusivity Doctrine is discussion in light of the dual capacity status of a household contact / bystander and also former employee. The evidential requirements in latent occupational claims is reviewed.

The mandatory reporting requirements of the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 are described as well as the appeal procedure under the reimbursement provision of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

These pocket parts provide information concerning the requirements for medical monitoring in workers’ compensation claims. It discusses. the Asbestos Fund, which has been established for those entities where workers’ compensation coverage cannot be established. The newly designed forms that need to be utilized in filing for benefits are included. Also, the recently modified Motion for Temporary and Medical Benefits, including a form Certification, is provided and discussed.

The newly revised Judgments for Total and Permanent Disability are provided in this pocket part. The Judgments include new refinements in offsets for pensions and Social Security disability benefits. Reviewed also is the “intentional wrong exception” to the Exclusivity Bar which has been the subject of new workers’ compensation insurance policy language and regulation.

The recently promulgated administrative rules governing the disposition of Temporary Disability Benefits are discussed. The non-duplication of benefits provisions are reviewed including the multiple agency adjudication process. An expansion of benefits available to Federal public safety officers is reviewed in this supplement.

Collateral medical benefit issues are discussed in light of the recent Supreme Court decision concerning this matter. The pocket parts include a Motion to Join the Collateral Health Carrier and provide sample Certifications to be used in support of the application. New pleadings issued by the Division of Workers’ Compensation in the area of medical payment and reimbursement claims are provided and commented upon in these materials.

Additionally, these pocket parts provide information concerning the new Rules of the Division of Workers’ Compensation embodying electronic filing requirements and new procedures involving both formal and informal proceedings, motion practice, post judgment process, and judicial performance. The expanded Medicare secondary reporting requirements and the mandatory coordination of benefits are reviewed in this supplement. The recovery aspects of Medicare conditional payments as well as future medical provisions are updated and discussed. The new Child Support Lien distribution forms, computation worksheets and judgments are provided and explained in depth. The NJ Supreme’ Court ruling and the legislative enactments are discussed concerning same sex couples and the availability of workers’ compensation benefits.

This supplement reviews the newly promulgated Rules concerning the Uninsured Employers’ Fund and audio and video coverage of workers’ compensation proceedings. The horrific tragedy of September 11th, 2001 and the impact it has upon the Workers’ Compensation system is discussed. This supplement reviews the newly enacted Smallpox Emergency Protection Act as well as recent court decisions concerning acts of terrorism. The subsequent legislative changes enacted in response to potential terrorist threats are reviewed, including the Public Safety Officers’ Benefit Act as well as the liberalized legislative enactments involving rescue workers and medical personnel.

The far-reaching ramifications of the newly enacted healthcare reform legislation are reviewed. The new prototype occupational medical care program, encompassing potential occupational exposure claims, is presented in this supplement.

The impact of the newly promulgated Federal rules and regulations concerning medical record privacy and compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) medical authorization requirements are reviewed in this supplement and model forms are furnished. The recently enacted statutory workers' compensation coverage options available to proprietors and partners are discussed. The supplement reviews the recent court decisions expanding the responsibility of the Second Injury Fund for pre-existing medical conditions in cases in which latent diseases become manifest during retirement. The statutory enactments concerning State Temporary Disability Benefits are reviewed. The recently amended Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act is explained in detail and forms are furnished and discussed.

The new administration and management of claims arising from insolvent workers’ compensation insurance is covered in this pocket part.

The recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the high judicial threshold for evaluation of scientific evidence are analyzed. The requirements for proof of scientific evidence in complex workers’ compensation cases are discussed including the admissibility of testimony from non-physicians experts. Furthermore, the evolving and expanding issues concerning medical monitoring are reviewed.

This pocket part also discusses recent changes in the application for counsel fees. The supplement includes the newly promulgated administrative directive embodying those changes.

To Order

The series and updates may be ordered in hardbound, CD-Rom and/or accessed thorough the Westlaw® research system.

More Information
Table of Contents Supp. 2011
Index, Supp. 2011
Summary of Contents

Related articles

• US Workers Compensation Centennial Commission (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' Law Firm Jon L. Gelman Ranked a Best Law Firm by U.S. News & World Report (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Facebook Makes an Appearance in Workers' Compensation Court (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• New Jersey Issues Workers Compensation Guidance on Evaluating Disputed Medical Provider Claims (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Congresswoman Woolsey Calls For A GAO Study of Workers Compensation-Cites Insurance Company Cost Shifting (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)