An employee may have dual employers but ultimately can only receive a single recovery from only one employer for work-related injuries. The “exclusivity doctrine,” permitting a complete recovery of damages against an employer, limits an injured worker’s benefit recovery to the compensation system, barring an intentional tort.
Showing posts with label Exclusivity Doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exclusivity Doctrine. Show all posts
Monday, May 30, 2022
Wednesday, March 30, 2022
The Risk of Working in a Factory
A Federal Court in NJ has dismissed a civil action for intentional tort brought by an injured worker against the employer.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Just Published: 2014 Update - Gelman on Workers' Compensation Law
Jon Gelman’s newly revised and updated treatise on Workers’ Compensation Law has just been published by West Group of Egan, MN. The treatise is the most complete work available on NJ Workers’ Compensation law.
The work offers an in-depth and insightful analysis that provides a quick and accurate guidance to those who practice workplace injury law. Time-saving comments and instructions shorten the claims process and expedite handling of issues.
New areas of the law reviewed:
The newly enacted SMART Act (The Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012), and the proposed Regulations, are discussed at length in this supplement. The newly enacted statutory provision concerning balance billing and expanded jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Court is reviewed. The launch of COURTS 4, the expanded workers’ compensation electronic filing system, implementing e-filing of Notice of Motions, is explained along with accompanying sample forms, codes, and instructions for filing/service. The statutory extension of lifetime benefits embodied in recent legislation for surviving spouses of police and fire department employees, who are fatally injured in-the-line of duty, is discussed. The recent case law concerning the second-prong of the “context test” involving the “Exclusivity Doctrine” is reviewed
New 2014 Section Sections include:
--Dependency—Surviving spouse of police or fire department killed in the line of duty [12.14.50]
--Case organization utilization reporting tracking system (COURTS)—Court proceeding type codes [25.22.30]
--Case organization utilization reporting tracking system (COURTS)—E-filing of motions—General motion [25.22.40]
Gelman on Workers’Compensation Law is exclusively integrated into the entire world-wide leading legal research network of West Group-Reuters-Thomson publications.
It is now available, in print, on CD-Rom and online via Westlaw™ and WestlawNext™. [Westlaw Database Identifier NJPRAC]
Jon L. Gelman is nationally recognized as an author, lecturer and skilled trial attorney in the field of workers’ compensation law and occupational/environmental disease litigation. Over a career spanning more than three decades he has been involved in complex litigation involving thousands of clients challenging the mega-industries of: asbestos, tobacco and lead paint. Gelman is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). He is the former Vice-President of The Workers Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG) and a charter member of The College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers. Jon is a founder of the Nancy R. Gelman Foundation Inc., which seeks to fund innovative research to cure breast cancer. He is also an avid photographer. jon@gelmans.com -www.gelmans.com
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Exclusivity Doctrine Not a Bar to Asbestos Claim Against an Employer Directly If Late Manifestation
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court permitted a civil action to go forward against an employer where the employee was exposed to asbestos fiber and contracted mesothelioma. The Court ruled that the latent manifestation, after the 300 week statutory period had lapsed and the Exclusivity Doctrine was not applicable.
The court held, "that claims for occupational disease which manifests outside of the 300-week period prescribed by the Act do not fall within the purview of the Act, and, therefore, that the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a) does not apply to preclude an employee from filing a common law claim against an employer."
Tooley v AK Steel Corporation
No. 21 WAO 2011, No. 22 WAP 20111, No. 23 WAP 2011
2013 Pa. LEXIS 2816
Decided: November 22, 2013
Ed Note: My thanks to Judge David B. Torrey for sharing this decision. Note the reference in the Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Saylor:
"8 David B. Torrey & Andrew E. Greenberg, Pennsylvania
Workers' Compensation Law & Practice §14.10 (3d ed. 2011) (expressing that Section 301(c)(2)'s time
limitation constitutes a "substantive prerequisite to ascertainment of the compensability," intended
to "establish, via arbitrary time basis, some outside limit to govern the potential [*64] liability of the
employer"). Accordingly, I would hold that the 300-week limitation in Section 301(c)(2) has no effect on
whether a worker's occupational disease comes within the WCA's coverage. As such, the exclusivity
mandate appearing in Section 303(a) of the statute applies, in my view, to preclude Plaintiffs from
maintaining a negligence-based lawsuit against Employers.16"
The court held, "that claims for occupational disease which manifests outside of the 300-week period prescribed by the Act do not fall within the purview of the Act, and, therefore, that the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a) does not apply to preclude an employee from filing a common law claim against an employer."
Tooley v AK Steel Corporation
No. 21 WAO 2011, No. 22 WAP 20111, No. 23 WAP 2011
2013 Pa. LEXIS 2816
Decided: November 22, 2013
Ed Note: My thanks to Judge David B. Torrey for sharing this decision. Note the reference in the Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Saylor:
"8 David B. Torrey & Andrew E. Greenberg, Pennsylvania
Workers' Compensation Law & Practice §14.10 (3d ed. 2011) (expressing that Section 301(c)(2)'s time
limitation constitutes a "substantive prerequisite to ascertainment of the compensability," intended
to "establish, via arbitrary time basis, some outside limit to govern the potential [*64] liability of the
employer"). Accordingly, I would hold that the 300-week limitation in Section 301(c)(2) has no effect on
whether a worker's occupational disease comes within the WCA's coverage. As such, the exclusivity
mandate appearing in Section 303(a) of the statute applies, in my view, to preclude Plaintiffs from
maintaining a negligence-based lawsuit against Employers.16"
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the Exclusivity Doctrine
"New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128.5, provides a prompt and efficient remedy for an employee’s claim against an employer for a workplace injury. The Legislature made the statutory workers’ compensation remedy its preferred mechanism for providing compensation to injured workers......Based on the strong legislative preference for the workers’ compensation remedy and an intentional-wrong standard that even an employer’s recklessness and gross negligence fails to satisfy, we hold that this matter falls short of demonstrating that an intentional wrong creating substantial certainty of bodily injury or death occurred. " Justice LaVecchia
A finding of a willful OSHA violation is not conclusive in determining whether the employer committed an intentional wrong for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act. Instead, it is one factor among the totality of circumstances to be considered. The issuance of a willful OSHA violation against employer (trench collapse injury) was insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, so the Court examined the totality of the circumstances of the accident and applies the conduct and context prongs of the substantial-certainty standard.
In reviewing the substantial certainty of injury prong of the dual test to determine employer liability beyond workers' compensation, the court distinguished this case from all prior decisions by relying upon the fact that the employer did not intentionally remove a safety device. Noting that the employer's actions in this circumstance, failure to have a proper trench preventing collapse system in place, where the soil was poor in violation of OSHA provisions, did not eliminate the exclusivity of remedy. The court specifically indicated that an employer should not be mearly penalized for actions taken for economic business motivation.
Furthermore, the high threshold of the content prong of the test was not satisfied the court enunciate. "...The type of mistake in judgment by the employer and ensuing employee accident that occurred on this construction site was so far outside the bounds of industrial life has never to become contemplated for inclusion in the Act's exclusively bar," ie. mere violation of an OSHA safety requirements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)