Court Holds Traumatic Claims Subject to Apportionment

The NJ Appellate Division ruled that apportionment of responsibility was required in a traumatic claim. They rationalized that in a traumatic, claim where various employments contributed in a material degree to the ultimate disability, apportionment was mandated.

The Court reasoned that traumatic claims did not involve the existence of a disease that was undisclosed and unknown over a long period of time and a retrospective analysis could establish a "triggering date" to fix an onset date.

Matters requiring implementation of the doctrine of last injurious rule involved claims where there was "an insidious etiology" and manifestation occurred over a protracted period of time.

PETER T. NOLAN - v. KLEINKNECHT ELECTRIC CO., INC. Decided April 17, 2009 Unpublished 2009 WL 1011174 (NJ App. Div 2009)