A New Jersey surgeon, a New Jersey patient, a New Jersey operating room, and still no New Jersey jurisdiction.
Landa Spine Center did everything a New Jersey medical provider normally does. Its surgeon operated on a New Jersey resident in a New Jersey hospital after the workers' compensation carrier approved the procedure. It billed $203,000 and was paid $4,197.40. When it asked the New Jersey Division of Workers' Compensation to award the difference, the Division said it lacked authority to hear the dispute. On November 2, 2026, the Appellate Division agreed in Landa Spine Center v. Posillico, No. A-1311-25 (App. Div. Nov. 2, 2026), 2026 WL 3306351, an unpublished per curiam opinion by Judges Gilson and Paganelli.
The decision is a compact lesson in how New Jersey decides whether a workplace injury belongs to it. It also confirms a rule every medical provider should know: a provider's claim for payment can never extend beyond the injured worker's own claim.
The Facts in Brief
Dominic Valinotti lived in Matawan, New Jersey, but worked in New York. He belonged to a New York union, was hired by Posillico in New York, and never worked for Posillico in New Jersey. On September 23, 2016, a pipe struck his leg while he was installing pipes in a building in the Bronx. Three days later, he filed a claim with the New York Workers' Compensation Board.
In March 2018, Dr. Joshua Landa performed a spinal fusion on Valinotti at a hospital in Livingston, New Jersey. According to Landa, Posillico's carrier, Starr Indemnity and Liability, preapproved the surgery and then paid a small fraction of the bill without explanation. Landa filed a medical provider application (MPA) with the Division in February 2021. Posillico moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supported by an undisputed certification from its vice president of insurance and claims. The judge of compensation granted the motion on November 18, 2025.
A Tribunal of Limited Jurisdiction
The panel started from a familiar premise. The Division is a creature of statute, and its jurisdiction "cannot be inflated by consent, waiver, estoppel or judicial inclination." The court drew that rule from Marconi v. United Airlines, 460 N.J. Super. 330 (App. Div. 2019), quoting Bey v. Truss Systems, Inc., 360 N.J. Super. 324 (App. Div. 2003). That framing mattered. The carrier's preauthorization of the surgery and its partial payment could not create jurisdiction the Legislature never granted. Because the scope of the Division's jurisdiction is a question of law, review was de novo, while the judge's undisputed findings of fact received deference.
The Workers' Compensation Act does not directly address injuries that occur outside New Jersey, as the Supreme Court observed in Williams v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 175 N.J. 82 (2003). New Jersey fills that silence with a constitutional benchmark. Any state with a "more-than-casual interest" in a compensable injury may apply its own act without offending full faith and credit, Connolly v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 317 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 1998), and New Jersey "generally will take jurisdiction and apply its Act when the State has a substantial interest," Williams, 175 N.J. at 90.
The Factors
To measure that interest, both Williams and Marconi use the 3 most critical factors:
(1) Place where the injury occurred;
(2) Place of the making of the contract;
(3) Place where the industry is localized;
What the list omits is just as telling. Neither the place of medical treatment nor the location of the medical provider is a Larson factor, and the panel declined to add either one. A New Jersey operating room does not convert a New York injury into a New Jersey claim.
The Provider Rides on the Worker
Landa's strongest argument was that the residency cases involved injured workers' claims, not a provider's application for additional reimbursement. The panel acknowledged the distinction and then called it "a distinction without a difference" for jurisdictional purposes. Both kinds of claims "can only be pursued before the Division if the Division has jurisdiction under the Act."
In practical terms, the MPA is derivative. It stands on the same jurisdictional footing as the employee's claim petition. If the injured worker could not have brought his case to the Division, neither can the surgeon who treated him.
"Exclusive" Does Not Mean "Unlimited"
Landa relied heavily on N.J.S.A. 34:15-15, which provides that "[e]xclusive jurisdiction for any disputed medical charge arising from any claim for compensation for a work-related injury or illness shall be vested in the [D]ivision." Read in isolation, that sentence sounds sweeping.
The panel read it in the context of the whole Act. The word "exclusive" allocates disputes between the Division and the Superior Court. It does not grant the Division jurisdiction over "all applications for medical provider services in all circumstances where the services and the provider are located in New Jersey." Put another way, section 15 decides which New Jersey tribunal hears a billing dispute that New Jersey law already reaches. It does not decide whether New Jersey law reaches the dispute in the first place. The statute's own phrase, "arising from any claim for compensation," points the same direction, and here the claim for compensation lived in New York.
The Worker Stays Protected
Landa warned that a jurisdictional dismissal would leave it free to pursue Valinotti personally, undermining a core purpose of the Act. The panel rejected that contention, citing N.J.S.A. 34:15-15's bar on charging or collecting medical fees from the injured worker, and held that Landa's recourse is the New York Board.
For workers' counsel, that language is welcome, but it is still worth watching. Once New Jersey declines jurisdiction, the worker's practical shield is a prompt resolution of the provider's dispute within the New York system.
The Remedy: Without Prejudice
The panel affirmed but modified the order to make the dismissal without prejudice, so Landa can file its MPA with the New York Board. New York provider disputes are governed by N.Y. Workers' Compensation Law § 13-g. Under the Board's guidance on unpaid medical bills, providers file Form HP-1.0 through the Board's OnBoard system, and disputes over out-of-state treatment go to arbitration rather than an administrative award. Section 13-g makes the arbitrator's value decision binding.
That shift in forum carries economic consequences. New York prices care against a fee schedule, while New Jersey still has none, a gap I examined in NJ's Fee Schedule Gap. A charge measured against New Jersey's "reasonable and customary" standard may look very different when valued under New York rules.
Practical Lessons
• Providers: Before treating a New Jersey resident injured in another state, find out where the claim was filed and run the six Larson factors. A carrier's preauthorization is not a jurisdictional ruling.
• Timing: The surgery here was in 2018, the MPA was filed in 2021, and the dismissal came in late 2025. Choosing the wrong forum can cost years, so check the other state's procedures and deadlines early.
• Employers and carriers: Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A short, specific certification on hiring, work location, and contract terms proved decisive because the provider could not dispute it.
• Workers' counsel: Keep the client insulated from collection activity while the provider's forum fight plays out, and coordinate with the provider when the claim lives elsewhere.
• Precedent: The opinion is unpublished and binding only on the parties under the court rules, but it applies the published Marconi rule to a new class of claimant.
The Bottom Line
In New Jersey workers' compensation, jurisdiction follows the employment, not the patient's address and not the surgeon's office. Landa makes clear that a provider's claim for payment cannot exceed the worker's claim from which it springs.
Sources
1. Landa Spine Center v. Posillico, No. A-1311-25, 2026 WL 3306351 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 2, 2026) (unpublished).
2. Marconi v. United Airlines, 460 N.J. Super. 330 (App. Div. 2019).
3. Williams v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 175 N.J. 82 (2003).
4. Connolly v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 317 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 1998).
5. Bey v. Truss Systems, Inc., 360 N.J. Super. 324 (App. Div. 2003).
6. N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 (Medical and hospital service).
7. N.Y. Workers' Compensation Law § 13-g (payment of medical bills; arbitration).
8. N.Y. Workers' Compensation Board, Request Assistance with Unpaid Medical Bills.
9. Jon L. Gelman, NJ's Fee Schedule Gap, Workers' Compensation (Jan. 22, 2026).
Recommended Citation
Jon L. Gelman, Residency Is Not Enough, Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com) (Nov. 3, 2026), https://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/2026/11/residency-is-not-enough.html
About the Author
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 have represented injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Author: "Workers' Compensation Law" West-Thomson-Reuters
Blog: workers-compensation.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/jongelman
LinkedIn Group: Injured Workers Law & Advocacy Group
Blue Sky: jongelman.bsky.social
Substack: jongelman.substack.com
© 2026 Jon L Gelman. All rights reserved.
Attorney Advertising
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Download Adobe Reader
