A New Jersey appellate court found that an employee could not proceed with an intentional tort claim against an employer because the evidence needed to meet the two-prong standard was lacking.
Showing posts with label Exclusivity Rule. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exclusivity Rule. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
Intentional Tort v Negligence
Thursday, December 14, 2023
Not an Exception
In most instances, the sole remedy for a worker injured at work is Workers’ Compensation Act [WCA] benefits. Even if the employer fails to obtain workers’ compensation insurance, the employee remains limited to those remedies provided under the WCA.
Tuesday, November 24, 2020
ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Meatpacking Plant for Treacherous COVID-19 Conditions
While the workers’ compensation system was established to shield employers from civil actions, in certain circumstances employers may still bring a cause of action directly against the employer. Essential workers in Nebraska have sued their employer for operating a meatpacking plant under conditions that were unsafe during the COVID-19 pandemic. This case highlights the need for employers to formulate worker safety protocols during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Monday, August 10, 2020
Intentional Tort Claim Barred by the Exclusivity Rule
The New Jersey Workers Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146, generally prohibits employees from suing their employers for injuries sustained in workplace accidents. In a recent case the Court probed the boundaries of the "intentional wrong" exception to that general rule.
Monday, November 18, 2019
NJ Supreme Court to Review Application of Exclusivity Rule Between Social Remedial Legislation Acts
The NJ Supreme Court will review two social remedial legislative acts to determine whether the Exclusivity Rule is applicable. The workplace legislation is the Law Against Discrimination [LAD] and the Workers’ Compensation Act [WCA]. The Court will determine whether a LAD claim is barred by the exclusive remedy of the WCA. Mary Richter, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Oakland Board of Education, C-234 Sept.Term 2019, 2019 WL 5847242, Petition for Certification Granted NOVEMBER 4, 2019
Friday, May 10, 2019
Leased Employment Has Its Consequences
An employee leased to another company [ER], ie. From a placement agency [PA], does not have the rights and benefits available to a regular employee. A recent case illustrates how the leased employee is prohibited from seeking an award for damages because of an accident at work.
Monday, April 15, 2019
Payment under section 20 invokes the exclusivity bar even if the employer is uninsured
A lump sum payment under Section 20 of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation law is deemed to be an employee’s complete surrender of rights and therefore it is the exclusive remedy and bars a negligence action.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Exclusivity Rule: Police Officer Hired to Direct Traffic Was a Special Employee-Unpublished Opinion
A municipal police officer who was hired by a contractor to direct traffic at a construction site was determined to be a “special employee” and barred from suing a co-worker of the construction company. The NJ Appellate Court has held, in an unpublished opinion*, the “Exclusivity Rule” barred the institution of a civil action against a co-worker.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Exclusivity Rule: Court Holds Risk of Death Contemplated by Legislature
A NJ Appellate Court has ruled that the Exclusivity Bar prohibits the estate of a fatally injured trash truck driver from proceeding with an intentional tort claim against his employer. Even though the employer may have defeated the neutral safety switch and was cited for violations by OSHA, the Court ruled that the industry risk of being fatally injured was contemplated by the Legislature when promulgating the NJ Workers' Compensation Act.
Sellino v Pinto Brothers Disposal, Docket No. A-2064-12T1, 2013 WL 5300076 (Decided: September 23, 2013)
Sellino v Pinto Brothers Disposal, Docket No. A-2064-12T1, 2013 WL 5300076 (Decided: September 23, 2013)
….
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, December 19, 2012
Football Concussions – An Epidemic Failure of Safety
Story after story is now emerging of the tragedy of head
concussions incurred during the sport of football. While the a battle is
brewing over jurisdictional issues involving filing Workers’ Compensation
claims in the State of California, a larger epidemic of product liability
claims is now emerging against Riddell, the major manufacturer of football
helmets.
The Sacramento Bee reported a sad story
about Dan the Morann, the former San Francisco 49ers first draft pick, who
suffered from tragic dementia.
One would think that workers’ compensation had some economic
incentive to provide a safer workplace. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The workers’ compensation system was crafted as a social insurance program to provide
benefits to workers who were injured in the course of their employment, and a
summary and expeditious fashion. The
cost of safety was never placed into the economic equation for workers’ compensation.
The cost of workers’ compensation is theoretically to be
passed upon the consumer as a cost of doing business. It is not a tool to
encourage a safe workplace.
On the other hand, the civil justice system affords injured
workers and their families another avenue to seek benefits by assessing
punitive damages against the manufacturer suppliers and distributors of unsafe
products. Unfortunately, very few jurisdictions permit claims against employers
to circumvent the exclusive bar incorporated into most state workers’
compensation acts.
Perhaps, it is time to rethink the Worker’s Compensation
program entirely and place it into a medical care delivery system that really works and utilize the civil litigation
system as a tool to enhance safety in the workplace to prevent future accidents
from happening.
....
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ, helping injured workers and their families for over 4 decades, is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson).
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ, helping injured workers and their families for over 4 decades, is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson).
Read more about the “exclusivity bar” and Worker’s
Compensation
Jul 11, 2012
In a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case pending in New York, a Federal Court ruled that the New Jersey law governing exclusivity of claims barred an employee from proceeding with an intentional tort claim against the ...
Jun 13, 2012
Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule. English: Motor vehicle accident following a ve... A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had ...
Apr 09, 2010
A Federal Judge, who is managing the Multi-District Asbestos Litigation, has ruled that the exclusivity doctrine defeats the application of the dual capacity doctrine where the manufacturer's corporation was merged into the ...
Jun 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 ...
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Exclusivity Rule Adopted in MDL Aviation Law Case
 |
| Continental Connection Bombarder Q400 operated by Colgan Air Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons |
The Exclusivity Doctrine bars an employee from filing a claim against his or her employer outside of workers' compensation. There are some limited exceptions to that rule such as intentional actions by the employer such as concealment of medical information and gross negligence. The workers' compensation act in the overwhelming majority of claims supersedes common law actions in tort and is the exclusive remedy for an injured worker against an employer. Dudley v. Victor Lynn Lines, Inc., 32 N.J. 479, 161 A.2d 479 (1960). Kristiansen v. Morgan et al., 153 N.J. 298, 708 A.2d 1173 (1998).
The Court reasoned that under a New York conflict-of-laws analysis, the State of New Jersey, rather than New York, had a greater interest in the case. since the plaintiff failed to meet the two prong NJ test to circumvent the NJ exclusivity rule, the case was dismissed.
In re Air Crash Near Clarence Center New York on February 12, 2009 v. Colgan Air, Inc., et al., # 09-md-2085, 10CV-10078, 2012 WL 1029530 (W.D.N.Y.) March 26, 2012
....
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
More on The Exclusivity Rule
Jun 13, 2012
Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule. English: Motor vehicle accident following a ve... A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had...
Jun 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 ...
Apr 09, 2010
A Federal Judge, who is managing the Multi-District Asbestos Litigation, has ruled that the exclusivity doctrine defeats the application of the dual capacity doctrine where the manufacturer's corporation was merged into the ...
Apr 23, 2012
The Exclusivity Rule: Under the circumstances of this case, which include a finding by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration that the accident was the result of a “willful violation” of its regulations, did the ...
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule
"The causal nexus between the accident and plaintiff's employment is manifestly established. It is inconsequential that she, like the plaintiff in Ramos, had arrived early to drink her morning coffee and ease into her workday before performing her work functions. The nexus to plaintiff's employment is more than sufficient here to conclude that the Act provides the exclusive means to compensate her for her injuries."
TAWANNA FLOYD v.CAROL VON NEUDECK, DOCKET NO. A–3855–10T2, Not Reported in A.3d, 2012 WL 2094063 (N.J.Super.A.D.) Decided June 12, 2012.
Related articles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)