The New Jersey Workers Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146, generally prohibits employees from suing their employers for injuries sustained in workplace accidents. In a recent case the Court probed the boundaries of the "intentional wrong" exception to that general rule.
Copyright
Monday, August 10, 2020
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Horseplay Is Not an Intentional Tort
Monday, January 8, 2024
Not A Violation of Public Policy
In rejecting an employee’s attempt to go forward with a lawsuit directly against an employer, the NJ Appellate Division ruled, in an unreported case*, that an employee, in a novel argument, may assert the “violation of public policy” as an allegation.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
NJ Supreme Court Bars Expansion of Injured Workers Remedies
Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640)
Argued 3/26/12 Decided 8/1/12 see http://tinyurl.com/d4pycqw
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 articles
Wednesday, June 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 claim against an employer for a workplace injury. The Legislature made the statutory workers’ compensation remedy its preferred mechanism for providing compensation to injured workers......Based on the strong legislative preference for the workers’ compensation remedy and an intentional-wrong standard that even an employer’s recklessness and gross negligence fails to satisfy, we hold that this matter falls short of demonstrating that an intentional wrong creating substantial certainty of bodily injury or death occurred. " Justice LaVecchia
A finding of a willful OSHA violation is not conclusive in determining whether the employer committed an intentional wrong for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act. Instead, it is one factor among the totality of circumstances to be considered. The issuance of a willful OSHA violation against employer (trench collapse injury) was insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, so the Court examined the totality of the circumstances of the accident and applies the conduct and context prongs of the substantial-certainty standard.
Related articles
Monday, May 30, 2022
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.
Wednesday, June 9, 2021
The Exclusivity Rule Is Not A Bar to a Discrimination Action
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that an employer could be liable under both the Law Against Discrimination Act [LAD] and the Worker's Compensation Act (WCA). Court reasoned that the dual remedies can work in harmony as they are both statutory claims. The Court noted that the common law remedies of the LADs are not prohibited by the WCA since they are statutory in nature. By allowing both claims to go forward, a worker is not limited to the statutory caps for recovery under the Worker's Compensation Act.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Workers' Compensation News - July 10, 2007, Vol. 5 Issue 107
FLORIDA EXPANDS INTENTIONAL TORT EXCEPTION Employee's injury was substantial certainty from employer's failure to respond to requests for new ladder did not require proof that employer concealed danger. "Even though case law on the intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity is devoid of any defined test that will establish substantial certainty as a matter of law, it is evident that concealment of the dangerous condition is only one of several factors in a nonexclusive list. " Bakerman v The Bombay Company, ___So. 2d____, 2007 WL 1774420 (Fla.), decided June 21, 1007
OSHA ORDERED TO RELEASE TOXIC EXPOSURE DATABASE — More than 25 Years of Workplace Sampling Yields Public Health Research Bonanza Washington, DC — The U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has wrongfully withheld data documenting years of toxic exposures to workers and its own inspectors, according to a federal court ruling posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a result, the world’s largest compendium of measurements of occupational exposures to toxic substances - more than 2 million analyses conducted during some 75,000 OSHA workplace inspections since 1979 - should now be available to researchers and policymakers. Each year, an estimated 40,000 U.S. workers die prematurely because of exposures to toxic substances on the job. Press Release: http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=882 Decision: http://www.peer.org/docs/dol/07_02_07_finkel_foia_ruling.pdf
ASBESTOS: Travelers Settles AC&S Claims The Travelers Cos. Inc. said today it has settled litigation with ACandS Inc., a former distributor and installer of asbestos products, for $449 million.http://www.courant.com/business/hc-trav-litig,0,1651056.story
ASBESTOS: NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE Cong. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) held a hearing on June 25 on the federal government’s response to the hazardous air contaminants that polluted lower Manhattan after the 9/11 attacks. The featured witness was former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who was in the hot seat for her claims that the air in NYC was safe to breathe. Much less attention was paid to former OSHA assistant secretary John Henshaw, who sat next to Whitman, but was left largely unscathed by the questioning. At least one Henshaw exchange deserves attention. The former OSHA chief insisted there are “safe levels of exposure to asbestos.” FYI: The WHO’s policy statement on the elimination of asbestos-related disease is here and the Institute of Medicine’s report on Asbestos: Selected Cancers (2007) is here. http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2007/07/06/safe-levels-of-asbestos-by-john-henshaw/
............................
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES
he workers' compensation mailing list is an informal means to periodically broadcast passive electronic messages to a large group of professionals with interest in workers' compensation law. It is distributed without charge to stimulate academic interest in various topics including case law, statutory law, administrative memorandum, proposed regulations and other various issues.
Subscription changes:
http://www.gelmans.com/FrontEnd/Email/join.asp
Past issues of Workers' Compensation News are archived & search-able in the Reading Room under "Mail Archives" http://www.gelmans.com/
Jon L. Gelman, Attorney at Law
1450 Valley Rd 1st fl,
PO Box 934,
Wayne NJ 07474-0934
Voice: (973)696-7900 / Fax: (973)696-7988 / e-mail: mailto:jon@gelmans.com
http://www.gelmans.com/
Author: Workers' Compensation Law (Thomson/West)
To purchase call: call 1-800-344-5008-Print: http://west.thomson.com/product/17152728/product.asp-Westlaw: http://www.westlaw.com/ (search under database NJPRAC)-CD-Rom.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Heath Concerns About the Misuse of Pesticides for Bed Bug Control
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are alerting the public to an emerging national concern regarding misuse of pesticides to treat infestations of bed bugs and other insects indoors. Some pesticides are being applied indoors even though they are approved only for outdoor use. Even pesticides that are approved for indoor use can cause harm if over applied or not used as instructed on the product label.
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of bed bug-related inquiries received by the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) over the past several years, with many involving incidents of pesticide exposure, spills, or misapplications. From January 2006-December 2010, NPIC reported 169 calls to their hotline where residents, homeowners, or pesticide applicators sprayed pesticides indoors to treat bedbugs. These cases involved pesticides that were misapplied, not intended for indoor use, or legally banned from use. Of those, 129 resulted in mild or serious health effects (including one death) for persons living in affected residences.
ATSDR warns that outdoor pesticides should not be used indoors under any circumstances. Homeowners and applicators should always carefully read the product label to make sure that:
it has an EPA registration number
- it is intended for indoor use
- it is effective against bed bugs (the label should say it is meant to be used to treat your home for bed bugs) and
- you know how to properly mix the product (if a concentrate) and where and how to apply it safely within the home.
- ....
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).
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Exclusivity Rule Adopted in MDL Aviation Law Case
Continental Connection Bombarder Q400 operated by Colgan Air Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons |
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
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Intentional Tort Claim Against Employer Proceeds for Pesticide Spraying
The workers, residents of Puerto Rico, were employed on a NJ farm harvesting produce. hey were employed to work in fields that the employer recently applied pesticides or was actually spraying the pesticides. Is was alleged that the employer failed to provide medical assistance after the workers became ill and did not provide the employee's physicians with complete with complete information on the [potential pesticide exposure that would have allowed better treatment.
The Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgement and is allowing the case to be heard.
Montalvo v. Larchmont Farmes, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-2704 (RBK/AMD) 2010 WL 3025045 (D.N.J.) decided July 29, 2010,
Click here to read more about pesticide exposures and workers compensation.
For over 3 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 exposures,
Friday, May 30, 2014
Intentional Fraud
This case caught my eye because of David DePaolo's recent blog post highlighting the recent, as David calls it, "Truly Imaginative" behavior of an individual playing two sides of the plot line.
The fraud issue struck a note for me as I have been reviewing cases for an upcoming seminar on workers' compensation issues. The decision of Bellino v Verizon, 2014 WL 10301786 (NJ App Div 2014) is a factual situation that seem to draw the ire of many insurance companies and employers. The injured worker failed to disclose some past medical information during a proceeding. The Court held that the element of intent was not proven.
Cases involving fraud are especially fact sensitive. Rarely does someone play both sides of the story line in perpetrating an intentional workers' compensation fraud scheme. Carlos Perry in West Virginia did so as the US Justice Department reports:
Knoxville Man Sentenced To Twelve Years Imprisonment For Workers' Compensation Fraud
Carlos Perry Found to Have Defrauded Six Insurance Companies Out of $401,649 in Benefits
According to evidence presented at the sentencing and guilty plea hearings by Assistant United States Attorney Zachary T. Lee, between January 2011 and February 2014, Perry developed a scheme in which he defrauded six different insurance companies of workers’ compensation benefits using false business and fictitious employees. An investigation by the United States Secret Service determined that Perry’s scheme entailed Perry impersonating an owner of six fictitious businesses located in Wise, Va., Johnson City, Tenn., Bristol, Va., and Abingdon, Va., in order to obtain workers’ compensation insurance. Perry then filed false injury claims on behalf of the fictitious employees.
Related articles
- 2013′s Top Ten Workers' Compensation Fraud Cases: $46 Million Stolen
- State Audit Reveals North Carolina Needs To Combat Employer Fraud
- Workers' Compensation Fraud Reporting Inaccurate and Misleading
- AIG Facing Lawsuit for Fraud
- President of Roofing Company Pleads Guilty to Felony for Scheme to Avoid Paying Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars in Insurance Premiums
- Insurance Company Broker Caught Cooking the Books
Wednesday, March 30, 2022
The Risk of Working in a Factory
Saturday, April 5, 2014
EPA Takes Action to Protect Public from an Illegal Nano Silver Pesticide in Food Containers; Cites NJ Company for Selling Food Containers with an Unregistered Pesticide Warns Large Retailers Not to...
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued an order to the Pathway Investment Corp. of Englewood, New Jersey to stop the sale of plastic food storage containers that have not been tested or registered with the EPA, in violation of federal pesticides law. The company’s Kinetic Go Green Premium Food Storage Containers and Kinetic Smartwist Series Containers both contain nano silver as an active ingredient, and the company markets other products as containing nano silver, which the company claims helps reduce the growth of mold, fungus and bacteria. Such claims can only be made on products that have been properly tested and are registered with the EPA.
“Claims that mold, fungus or bacteria are controlled or destroyed by a particular product must be backed up with testing so that consumers know that the products do what the labels say,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. “Unless these products are registered with the EPA, consumers have no information about whether the claims are accurate. The EPA will continue to take action against companies making unverified public health claims.”
Some pesticides have been linked to various forms of illnesses in people, ranging from skin and eye irritation to cancer. Some pesticides may also affect the hormone or endocrine systems. In many situations, there are non-chemical methods that will effectively control pests.
Under federal pesticide...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]
Related:
New York City workers have high pesticide exposure
Oct 04, 2013
The findings “underscore the importance of considering pest and pesticide burdens in cities when formulating pesticide use regulations,” the researchers from the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene wrote in the ...
http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/
Intentional Tort Claim Against Employer Proceeds for Pesticide
Aug 11, 2010
A US District Court in NJ is allowing a claim of injured agricultural worker to proceed against an employer directly for an intentional tort flowing from a pesticide spraying. The workers, residents of Puerto Rico, were employed ...
http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/
Workers' Compensation: Highly hazardous pesticides should be ...
Aug 11, 2013
The tragic incident in Bihar, India, where 23 school children died after eating a school meal contaminated with monocrotophos, is an important reminder to speed up the withdrawal of highly hazardous pesticides from markets ...
http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/
Saturday, August 11, 2007
NJ Permits Intentional Tort Claim Against Former Employer- PVC Exposure
This case involved exposure to poly vinyl chloride at a Pantasote, a Paterson NJ plant, causing disease to former workers which is characteristic of Raynaud's phenomenon ( fingers blanch and numbnessand discomfort are experienced upon exposure to the cold), changes inthe bones at the bones at the end of the fingers [Known asacro-osteolysis (AOL)], joint and muscle pain, and scleroderma-likeskin changes (thickening of the skin, deceased elasticity and slightedema).
Inhaled vinyl chloride has been shown to increase the risk of a rareform of liver cancer (angiosarcoma of the liver) in humans. It is classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a Group A, human carcinogen.
Plaintiffs represented by: Jon Gelman (NJ), Ron Simon (DC), Herschel Hobson (TX) and Mark Cuker (PA)
Decision- Buynie v. Airco Co, NJ App Div 2007, Decided August 10, 2007
See related articles:
Misleading Statements Made By Vinyl Chloride Companies Held Valid Basis for Suit
Workplace Poison
Vinyl Chloride Conspiracy Documents: Part 4 (Jun 1974 - Dec 1974)
Vinyl Chloride Plants in New Jersey
Wednesday, April 13, 2022
Injury Caused by Defeated Machine Guard Results in OSHA Fine of $159,522
An employee working at Crystal Finishing Systems Inc.’s aluminum extrusion facility in Weston was hospitalized with serious injuries after being struck by a puller machine while trying to unjam a piece of aluminum.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Wilcox Farms Fatal Silo Collapse - Citations
“As an employer, especially a family business, it’s the worst thing you could ever imagine happening,” said Andy Wilcox. “The fact that we weren’t able to find Steve for two days was really tough.”
Wilcox Farms has 15 working days to appeal the citation.
- A side discharge system was used to unload corn instead of the manufacturer’s standard procedure of withdrawing grain from the vertical center via the auger. The side discharge system was not installed, designed or supplied by an authorized dealer or contractor.
- The silo was overfilled all the way to the roof and past the maximum fill level of one inch from the top of the vertical walls.
- The silo had been previously repaired with a patch over a rupture of the wall due to corrosion. The repair was not made with corrugated material and was not done in a way to ensure structural stability. Also, it wasn’t assessed by a structural engineer or the silo manufacturer.
- There were previous occasions during which the company had simultaneously filled the silo while it was being discharged.
- Employees weren’t trained in specific procedures and safety practices for silo operations and maintenance.
- The employer did not maintain the silos in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance and safety procedures.
Related articles
- Klickitat County Lumber Company Fined (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Stucco Contractor in NJ Receives OSHA Fines $70,000+ for Scaffolding Violations (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Why We're Still Killing Workers in the USA (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Washington Workers' Advisor Blog Launched (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- OSHA Cites Nebraska Food Supplement Plant for 10 Violations (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- NFL Bounties - Intentional Injuries (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
Thursday, July 23, 2020
Lessons from Asbestos Litigation Apply to COVID Claims
Saturday, August 4, 2012
OSHA Sanctions Chicago Company With $325,700 in Fines for Safety Violations
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited specialty metal forgings producer A. Finkl & Sons Co. with 26 safety violations at the company's Chicago facility, including two willful violations that involve failing to provide fall protection around open pits and rectify multiple hazards found in crane inspections. Proposed penalties total $352,700.
OSHA initiated an inspection in February after receiving a complaint alleging that cranes used in the facility were in disrepair, including having malfunctioning hoisting brakes, and that powered industrial trucks were being operated by untrained workers.
Specifically, the willful violations are failing to ensure that open pits are guarded by standard railings and/or covers to protect employees from falling in, and failing to correct deficiencies identified by crane inspections such as missing bolts, inoperable radio controls, and problems with bridges, trolleys and main hoist brakes. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.
Twenty-two serious violations involve failing to install hoist guards on industrial cranes, ensure that independent hoisting units on all cranes that handle hot metal have at least two holding brakes, ensure that all crane trolleys and bridges are equipped with brakes that have ample thermal capacity for the equipment's frequency of operation and which prevent the impairment of functions due to overheating, ensure that a thorough inspection of all crane ropes is completed, ensure that loads are lifted in a manner to prevent swinging on cranes and have a responsible person on-site with knowledge of cranes. Other violations include failing to ensure that ladders are placed in a manner that provides secure footing for workers, store liquefied petroleum gas containers away from stairways or other exit areas, adequately outline the rules for lockout/tagout procedures, guard live electrical parts over 50 volts, protect electrical conductors entering boxes from abrasion, and visually inspect portable plug- and cord-connected equipment for defects. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
One repeat violation involves failing to ensure that powered industrial trucks are examined prior to being placed into service as well as keep the trucks in a clean condition, free from lint, excess oil and grease. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. A similar violation was cited in 2006 at the same facility.
One other-than-serious violation is failing to create, certify and post the OSHA 300A summary log of injuries and illnesses or an equivalent form for the year 2011 by Feb. 1, 2012. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.
"A. Finkl & Sons Co. has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the safety of its employees. When employers fail in their responsibility to provide a safe workplace, OSHA will take all necessary action to protect workers on the job," said Nick Walters, OSHA's regional administrator in Chicago.
Due to the willful and repeat violations and the nature of the hazards, OSHA has placed A. Finkl & Sons Co. in the agency's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. The program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations. For more information about the program, visit http://s.dol.gov/J3.
The company previously has been inspected by OSHA 24 times since 1970, with 17 inspections resulting in citations for various violations. The two most recent previous inspections, in 2006 and 2007, resulted in citations for willful and repeat violations related to fire and fall hazards.
The citations can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/AFinklandSons_191122.pdf.
A. Finkl & Sons Co. employs 398 workers at its Chicago plant. The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.