Workers' Compensation: When Credibility Crumbles: Workers' Comp Claim Dismissed

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed the dismissal of workers' compensation claims brought by Dorothy Makins against Premier Cadbury, LLC. Makins alleged that two incidents while working at Cadbury in 2018 caused or aggravated her injuries, which stemmed from prior employment.

The case proceeded to a bifurcated trial in the Division of Workers' Compensation, where the initial focus was on whether the alleged accidents actually occurred and if there was a causal link between them and Makins' injuries. The compensation judge ultimately ruled against Makins, dismissing her claims against Cadbury.

What the Petitioner Failed to Prove

At the heart of the trial was the petitioner's burden of proof. To succeed on her claims against Cadbury, Dorothy Makins needed to demonstrate that she "suffered a compensable accident" on the specific dates alleged – February 11, 2018, and June 8, 2018 – while lifting patients at Cadbury. Crucially, she had to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning it was more likely than not), that her injuries were causally related to these alleged workplace incidents.

Why the Appellate Court Affirmed the Dismissal

The Appellate Division upheld the trial court's decision primarily because of the compensation judge's critical finding regarding Makins' credibility. The trial judge found Makins "not credible," pointing to several factors:

Inconsistencies within the injured worker's own testimony.
When questioned about facts that were not in her favor, there was a noticeable change in the injured worker's demeanor.
Discrepancies between the petitioner's testimony about how the accidents occurred and the details contained in documented reports of the incidents.

Appellate courts give substantial deference to the factual findings and credibility assessments made by trial judges, especially in workers' compensation cases, because the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand. The Appellate Division found no reason to disturb the compensation judge's conclusion that Makins was not credible.

Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the trial's bifurcation was agreed upon by all parties, and Makins had the opportunity to present medical expert testimony to challenge evidence used for impeachment but chose not to. The court also found no due process violation regarding the admission of incident reports and other documents, as counsel had consented to their inclusion.

Because Makins failed to meet her burden of proving a compensable accident and causal relationship, a failure heavily influenced by the negative credibility finding, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of her claims against Cadbury.

Makin v. Palace Rehab & Care Center, et al. Docket No. A-2363-23, A-2276-33 ( NJ App Div 2025)

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, When Credibility Crumbles: Workers' Comp Claim Dismissed, www.gelmans.com (04/25/2025) https://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/2025/04/when-credibility-crumbles-workers-comp.html

......

ORDER NOW

*Jon L. Gelman of Wayne, NJ, is the author of NJ Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise Modern Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters). For over five decades, the Law Offices of Jon Gelman 1.973.696.7900
jon@gelmans.com has represented injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational illnesses and diseases.