Long COVID's Dopamine Trail

For years, workers disabled by long COVID have described brain fog, memory loss, apathy, and slowed thinking that employers and carriers dismissed as subjective or unrelated to the job. A new study published in eBioMedicine (a Lancet-family journal) supplies something these claims have historically lacked: an objective, measurable brain signature of the injury. For the workers' compensation bar, that shift from symptom description to biological proof is the story.

Workers' Compensation Lien Secures Damages

In a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court found the defendants were 85% at fault, and the plaintiff, Antonio Lorenzo-Noda, was 15% at fault. The court determined that the plaintiff's negligence, at 15%, was less than the 51% threshold under the New Jersey Comparative Negligence Act, which allows him to recover damages.

New EPA Rule Will Lighten the Burden of Proving an Asbestos-Related Disease Claim

In many occupational asbestos claims, it has been challenging to establish that asbestos fiber was used in the workplace. That will soon change under recently announced US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Rules.

COVID-19 on the Brain: Neurological Symptoms Persist in Majority of Long-Haulers

A new study offers scientific evidence supporting permanent neurological disability flowing from an occupational COVID-19 condition. Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine are conducting a longitudinal study to track neurological symptoms in COVID-19 “long-haulers.”

OSHA's vague COVID-19 reporting guidance

OSHA issued a COVID-19 reporting guidance that lacks a foundation in essential epidemiology as well as legal evidentiary principles for admissibility. It is doubtful that court of law would permit the guidance to be used for the determination of causal relationship.

Impartiality: Cornerstone of the justice system

The cornerstone of the justice system is judicial impartiality. Impartiality is essential for fairness and due process. The NJ Code of Conduct for Judges of Compensation NJAC 12:235-10.1 et seq. - Appendix, mandates impartiality of the judiciary.

Verdict: $2 Billion -- Herbicide Occupational Exposures - The Next Wave of Serious Compensation Claims

A jury in California has awarded a couple $2 Billion as a result of cancer contracted after using RoundUp manufactured by Monsanto. This is the 3rd verdict in a row in a series of trials against the pesticide manufacturer.

Fundamental Fairness

Workers’ Compensation matters are adversarial in nature and must furnish all parties with due process, a concept that embodies fundamental fairness[1]. There are two sides, at least, to very story, and the justice requires that the hearing official balance the facts to determine an appropriate result within the confines of the rule of law.

To ascertain the truth parties have the right to cross-examine witnesses. If that right is denied, the concept of fundamental fairness is suppressed. 

A judge of compensation ordered stem cell medical treatment. Presented with evidence by way of expert opinion the judge was held to have denied the parties fundamental fairness by not allowing a medical expert to be cross-examined and failing to go on the record to memorialize the proceeding. 

The issue arose in a workers’ compensation matter where the injured worker moved for stem cell medical treatment to relieve a shoulder injury. The compensation judge held an off the record conversation with the parties in chambers and spoke to the medical expert on the telephone. The compensation judge ruled, without taking medical testimony, that the proposed controversial treatment, not FDA approved, was approved. 

The Appellate Division in reversing the compensation judge’s decision, stated: 

“Where an important issue is discussed in chambers, “a record must be made or a summary placed on the record as to what transpired in chambers. Only then is effective appellate review insured.” Klier v. Sordoni Skanska Const., 337 N.J. Super. 76, 86 (App. Div. 2001). We see no reason why the same caution should not apply where the motion for medical benefits is contested and a hearing is necessary. 

“ We recognize that under the Act, “hearing evidence, exclusive of ex parte affidavits, may be produced by both parties, but the official conducting the hearing shall not be bound by the rules of evidence.” N.J.S.A. 34:15-56. We also have held that “[w]hile the technical rules of evidence may be relaxed at workmen’s compensation proceedings, they may not be relaxed to the point of infringing on the parties’ due process rights or other fundamental rights.” Paco v. Am. Leather Mfg. Co., 213 N.J. Super. 90, 95-96 (App. Div. 1986) (citing 3 Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 79.25(c) (1983)). This includes the right of cross-examination. See id. at 96; see also California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158 (1970) (describing cross-examination as “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth” (quoting 5 Wigmore on Evidence § 1367 (3d ed. 1940))); State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 309 (2006) (emphasizing importance and efficacy of cross-examination). 

"Crothall opposed stem cell treatment because it was not FDA approved. Dr. Krone’s testimony in chambers was not recorded and it was not taken under oath, yet it was found to be credible by the judge without affording Crothall the opportunity for cross-examination. We find that the procedures lacked fundamental fairness. We reverse the order and remand the motion for medical benefits to the workers compensation division for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not express an opinion in support of or against petitioner’s claim for stem cell treatment in light of the inadequacy of this record. 

Even though the rules of evidence may be relaxed in a workers' compensation proceeding, the concept of fundamental fairness requires that the parties have the right to cross examine expert witnesses and that a formal record be made of the proceedings, even if conducted in chambers.

[1] “Fair Trial,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. (Google Scholar)

Haggerty v. Crothall Service Group, Docket No. A-4478-17T4, 2019 WL 1975907 (Decided May 3, 2019) 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.

See also:

Occupational Exposure to Diacetyl and Acetaldehyde Results in Compensable Colorectal Cancer

Medical Treatment is an Exclusive Remedy Not a Reasonable Accommodation

Insufficient Evidence: When "A Lot" is Not Enough

The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence: A New Evidentiary Standard

…. 

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 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900jon@gelmans.com has been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Insufficient Evidence: When "A Lot" is Not Enough

A Judge of Compensation's opinion must be supported by objective medical evidence and not merely based upon an inadmissible net opinion of a medical expert.

Judicial Limitations in Workers’ Compensation Cases

Frequently a workers’ compensation hearing officer divides a litigated matter into two phases, compensability and damages so litigation can be conducted in a more efficient manner. The procedure is designated as bifurcation and the limitations imposed by the procedure must have carefully adhered to while the adjudicating the claim.

A New Jersey appellate court recently ruled, in an unpublished opinion[1], that a judge of compensation committed reversible error by exceeding the constraints of the bifurcation process. The hearing officer decided the compensability of a denied accident and then went further by awarding damages by way of granting an award for the temporary disability.

An injured worker claimed that he suffered an accident during his employment because of carrying a heavy package at the employer’s place of business. The accident was reported by “text message” and voice message” after he had left the place of employment and returned home. The court assessed the witnesses’ credibility while testifying and determined the injured worker to be credible.

At the time of the trial, the employer relied on a written note from the injured worker’s doctor that stated, the worker “was shoveling snow and developed severe low back pain with right leg radiation.” The attorney for the employer failed to call the doctor as a witness during the trial. The appellate court held that the judge of compensation could give the written note whatever weight it wished to do so, and upheld the finding of the workers’ compensation hearing officials ruling that the matter was compensable and then, despite the bifurcation of the trial, entered an award for temporary disability benefits.

In a collateral issue raised on appeal, prior to making the determination, the judge of compensation, on her own volition sought and relied on additional factual information from the State of New Jersey. She “contacted the State and was advised” that the injured worker had been paid temporary disability benefits” for a certain period. The reviewing appellate tribunal rule that “Judges should not conduct their own factual investigation, let alone do so without notice and an opportunity for the parties to be heard. See Lazovitz v. Bd. of Adjustment, Berkeley Heights, 213 N.J. Super. 376, 381-82 (App. Div. 1986); Amadeo v. Amadeo, 64 N.J. Super. 417, 424 (App. Div. 1960).” and deemed such action as inappropriate, but vacated the Order for other reasons.

Interestingly, whether a Judge could take “judicial notice” of temporary disability payments was not discussed. “Judicial notice” is a rule of law in evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth is so authoritatively attested that it cannot be reasonably contested. The NJ Division of Workers’ Compensation normally cross-matches payment information of State temporary disability benefits to efficiently satisfy statutorily imposed liens and eliminate duplicate recoveries. "Administrative procedures are in place for avoiding duplication of benefits in cases where claimants have pursued temporary disability benefits under both the Temporary Disability Benefits Law (TDBL) and the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act (WCA)." Gelman, Jon L, Workers Compensation Law, 38 NJPRAC 17.10.50. Temporary disability liens–non–duplication of benefits (Thomson-Reuters 2018). 

The award of temporary disability benefits was reversed by the appellate division and the matter was remanded to the Division of Workers’ Compensation for further hearing on that issue. The court held, “Despite bifurcation, the judge found that Moran was entitled to temporary disability benefits and appears to have made other findings of the nature of the injury. These other issues were decided without warning and deprived Cosmetic of an opportunity to present evidence or to confront the evidence upon which the judge relied. Because the judge mistakenly exceeded the limits of the bifurcation agreement, we vacate those parts of the order under review that granted temporary disability benefits and other relief to Moran, and we remand those proceedings that would naturally have followed the determination that Moran sustained a work-related injury.”

While bifurcation allows for judicial efficiency, the constraints imposed by procedure need to be strictly followed. 

Moran v. Cosmetic Essence, LLC, Docket No. A-2588-1671 (N.J. App. Div. 2018) Decided March 14, 2018. 2018 WL 1308857 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

…

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).

[1] 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.

The Inherent Judicial Power of Judges of Compensation

A Judge of Compensation has the discretion to call and question witnesses in pending cases. A NJ Appellate Court affirmed the trial court award of additional weeks of temporary disability,  the imposition of a 25% penalty for unreasonable and negligent delay in defending the case and 20% counsel fees.

The Facts Don't Change Because You Try a Case

In my early days in the practice of law,  when I was eager to try every case, my dad, a lawyer, used to remind me that, "The facts don't change because you try a case." I  was reminded of that adage while reading a recent NJ Appellate Court's opinion, where a respondent unsuccessfully appealed the trial court's decision.

Accelerated Justice Is Problematic on Appeal

Workers' Compensation matters were intended by the legislature to be summary and remedial actions. Accelerated justice does have its consequences on appeal, and should be implemented prudently.

Substantial Credible Evidence Remains the Rule

Despite the informality of  a workers compensation hearing, the evidence relied upon by the hearing official must be substantially credible in order to meet the burden of proof to assess disability. When the claimant has had a history of a multitude of back injuries, sorting out the claims maybe a complicated and difficult process. The compensation judge is compelled to ascertain which accident  is the ultimate triggering incident that resulted in permanent disability. 

The last back claim of a worker did not meet the evidential standards to sustain a claim for disability when the diagnostic tests, as interpreted by the treating physician, did not support the evidential requirements to establish the assessment of permanent disability. 

A worker in New Jersey, who has a long history of back injuries, both at work and at home, was unable to meet the evidential requirements to to establish a case for increased disability. An MRI, interpreted by the treating physician, demonstrated no change in the injured workers medical condition following the last incident at work.

Accordingly, The NJ Appellate Division sustained the ruling by the compensation judge, who had held that proofs offered at trial were insufficient to meet the requirement of the statutory credible evidence standard. The trial judge was held to have correctly relied upon the treating physician’s diagnostic MRI taken subsequent to the last accident to rule out the final incident as the triggering episode that generated the claimant’s disability. 

Beausejour v Chamberlin Plumbing & Heating, Inc.,  2014 WL 300929 (N.J. Super. A.D.), Jan. 29, 2014

Related articles

• Can I Work and Still Receive Social Security Disability Benefits? (attorneyaxinn.wordpress.com)
• Temporary Disability - Definition From The Disabilitybenefitshome Glossary (disabilitybenefitshome.com)
• Treating Source - Definition From The Disabilitybenefitshome Glossary (disabilitybenefitshome.com)
• Occupational pulmonary case dismissed by court for lack of evidence (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Ways To Get Your Disability Benefits Before the Hearing, By Andrew N. Egan (andreweganlaw.wordpress.com)
• Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Part III - Why was Bill Roache Prosecuted? (crimsolicitor.wordpress.com)
• Police: No evidence SAS involved in Princess Diana's death (metro.co.uk)
• Date Last Insured Dli - Definition From The Disabilitybenefitshome Glossary (disabilitybenefitshome.com)

NJ Court Sets the Evidentiary Proof Standard for a Pulmonary - Cardiovascular Claim

A NJ Workers' Compensation Court affirmed the dismissal of a pulmonary claim ruling that the evidence presented was lacking, and that the statutory limitations of expert medical fees do not act to the detriment of the injured worker in the proof of a workers' compensation claim.

"In her written opinion, the compensation judge found the testimony of Dr.Kritzberg more credible than that of Dr. Hermele. The judge found that petitioner's counsel “trie[d] to make it appear that petitioner presented to Dr. Hermele on his own for treatment. That is simply not true. Petitioner's counsel sent petitioner to Dr. Hermele. Dr. Hermele did not treat petitioner.” Additionally, of great significance to the compensation judge was the fact that petitioner had been treating with a cardiologist for twenty-three years, testified that he believed his breathing difficulties were related to his heart condition, and had never been treated for any pulmonary condition, despite testifying that his pulmonary complaints worsened in 1988, while continuing to work for respondent for eleven more years. The judge inferred that petitioner's cardiologist never referred him to a pulmonary specialist for treatment.

The Court also held that an "adverse inference" could be drawn when the injured worker does not offer supporting medical records into evidence to prove a claim.

"The compensation judge drew an adverse inference “from the fact the petitionernever produced a certified copy of the records from his treating cardiologist orhad Dr. Hermele review said records as part of his evaluation[,]” noting that Dr.Hermele readily admitted “there is a relationship between the heart and thelungs.”

Furthermore, the medical evidence presented at the time of trial, support the lack of causal relationship of a pulmonary medical condition caused by a pre-existing cardiovascular condition, rather than an independent pulmonary condition cause by exposure to industrial air pollution.

"Critical for the court were the chest x-rays taken of the petitioner which
showed that he did not have bi-lateral flattening of his diaphragm. If he
truly had pulmonary disease unrelated to his heart condition[,] you would expect
to find bi-lateral flattening of the diaphragm. Only the left side of petitioner's diaphragm was flattened[,] which is to be expected since both doctors
agreed petitioner has cardiomegaly (enlargement of the heart).....

Facebook Disclosure for 87 Class Action Plaintiffs? Federal Court Denies Discovery Request

Social media accounts are evidential to determine the credibility of the a party in a workers' compensation claim. Take it one step further and they can also be a factor in determining deviation from employment. Today's post was shared by WCBlog and comes from p.ost.im

Social media accounts, typically Facebook, are currently a hot-button issue for plaintiff ESI production in civil litigation. Most courts (but not all!) require a threshold showing that the public account has relevant information that would lead to discoverable evidence before requiring a plaintiff to produce private portions of the account.

In an order dated July 19, 2013 in the case of Jewell v. Aaron’s, Inc., Civil No. 1:12-CV-0563-AT (N.D.Ga. 2013), 87 opt-in plaintiffs are suing their employer for, among other claims, not allowing certain lunch breaks as required by law. The defendants sought, among their discovery requests:
“All documents, statements or any activity available that you posted on any internet Web site or Web page, including, but not limited to, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, or a blog from 2009 to the present during your work hours at Aaron’s store.”

Surveillance Video Barred as Belated Evidence

A New Jersey appellate court held that the trial court's decision to bar the admission of a surveillance tape into evidence was appropriate in a total disability claim, where the employer's attorney did not adhere to the administrative of rules concerning the offering of evidence. On the last day of a trial, the employer attempted to introduce a surveillance video of the of the employee on the basis that the tape would refute the injured worker's testimony that he could do nothing at home more than replace a lightbulb.

At the trial, Judge  Kenneth Kovalcik, exercising his judicial discretion, barred the use of the video as evidence. The court relied upon NJAC 12:235-3.11(a)(4)(i) that requires a pretrial memorandum must reflect that a party intends to utilize videos or other electronic media prior to trial. The defense argued that it was unable to comply with the administrative requirement because the video did not exist at the time the pretrial memorandum was submitted and that it was necessary to rebut the petitioner's testimony.

In affirming the trial judge, the appellate court reasoned that it was not an abuse of discretion to bar the use of the video. It reasoned that the belated surveillance tapes could not be admitted unless the employer could show that it was unaware, and could not have become aware, of the circumstances warranting the surveillance video before the hearing.

Marra v. Ryder Transportation Resources & Second Injury Fund, Docket No. A-5274-10T4, 2012 WL 2505731 (N.J.Super.A.D.), decided July 2, 2012.

Related articles

• Too Old For Comp Statute Upheld

  ---

• Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the Exclusivity Doctrine

  ---

• Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule

  ---

Facebook Photo Admissible As Evidence

An injured worker was denied benefits when an Arkansas Court admitted into evidence Facebook pictures that were posted on line showing him drinking and partying. The worker had alleged that as a result of a hernia, sustained at work, he was in excruciating pain.

The trial court held that the evidence went to the weight to be given his testimony and it was within the province of the Court admit them into evidence. The Court dismissed the injured worker's argument that the Facebook photos "are a disgrace to the dignity of the workers' compensation proceeding and the legal system." The case was dismissed.

Clement v. Johnson's Warehouse Showroom, 2012 Ark. App. 17, 2012 WL 11285 (Ark.App.)

Related articles

• Facebook Creating Even A Greater Problem in Comp Claims

  ---

• Facebook, Organ Donations and Medical Privacy of Workers' Compensation

  ---

• Trending: Opting-Out of Workers' Compensation

  ---