Deciding employment status is an issue that can be resolved either before the Division of Workers’ Compensation [DWC] or before Superior Court in a civil action.
A firetruck struck a volunteer firefighter that the defendants used to bar hop. A claim was filed in Superior Court. The trial court ruled that the case should be transferred to the DWC to determine employment status.
The injured worker had not filed a claim before the DWC. The employer/insurance company attempted to file a formal claim petition, but the DWC rejected the claim since the DWC computer system would not recognize the matter. A Supervising Judge of Compensation refused to hear the case as the claim petition for benefits could not be heard before the DWC unless the injured worker filed a formal claim for benefits.
The trial judge in Superior Court on a Motion for Reconsideration directed the injured worker to file a claim petition to comply with the intent of the prior Orders issued by the Court.
Even though the Transfer Order to the DWC entered by the Superior Court was interlocutory, the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and accelerated the appeal.
The Appellate Division held that the trial court committed reversible error when it exercised its discretion in transferring the matter to the DWC. The Court held that the Superior Court has jurisdiction to "determine the existence of the employment relationship and such other employment issues as a raised by the defense to the employee’s civil action."
It is well recognized that both fora can render a decision on employment status issues and that the Superior Court should retain the matter. The Appellate Division reasoned that the action's complaint was filed initially in the Superior Court and, as the forum is the suitor, “master of his complaint." The DWC does NOT have exclusive jurisdiction over the claim. The DWC should NOT have been assigned by the trial judge the task of deciding the issue that may determine whether the injured worker should be relegated to workers’ compensation benefits rather than personal injury damages.
The Court reversed the trial court, vacated the transfer order, and remanded the case to enter an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Smith v. Township of South Hackensack, Docket No. A-3258-20, 2022 WL 497657, Decided Feb. 18, 2022.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULES BEFORE CITING.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not “constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.” Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Recommended Citation: Gelman, Jon L., The Master of the Complaint Retains Jurisdiction, Workers' Compensation Blog, Feb. 28, 2022), https://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-master-of-complaint-retains.html
Related Articles
NJ Division of Workers' Compensation to Go Forward With In-Person Hearings 02/14//22
OSHA fines New Jersey company $130,000 for methylene chloride violations 02/04/2022
Limited Liability Corporation Is Bound by Election of Coverage for Members 01/28/2022
Order: Workers' Compensation Law 2022 Update 12/11/21
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (Thomson-Reuters). For over five decades, the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have represented injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Blog: Workers ' Compensation
Twitter: jongelman
LinkedIn: JonGelman
LinkedIn Group: Injured Workers Law & Advocacy Group
Author: "Workers' Compensation Law" Thomson-Reuters
