Copyright

(c) 2010-2025 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label New Jersey Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Jersey Supreme Court. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

An Unpaid Volunteer Firefighter Is Entitled to NJ Workers’ Compensation Temporary Benefits


The NJ Supreme Court unanimously held that an unpaid and unemployed volunteered firefighter was entitled to temporary workers’ compensation benefits. The Court, in reversing both the Trial and Appellate rulings, declared that volunteer firefighters have been conferred special status by the New Jersey legislature and they should be paid temporary disability benefits at the maximum rate without a seven-day waiting period, even if the injured volunteer firefighter was not holding outside employment at the time of the work-related injury.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

NJ Supreme Court Hears Premises Rule Case

The Premises Rule maybe getting an updated interpretation by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Within the last several days the Court heard the oral argument in Hersch v The County of Morris. The case involves an employee of a public entity that was given a seniority “perk” of a paid parking pass to the County parking garage.

After parking in the garage, the employee crossed a public road to gain access to her assigned office in the County building. The employee was struck by a motor vehicle. Both the Trial and Appellate Courts held the matter to be compensable.

The NJ Supreme Court was presented by the defense that the accident occurred off premises and out of the control of the employer. The employee argued that the injury occurred within the course of the employment because the employer furnished the parking pass as “perk” to the employee. 
The employer alleged that the parking pass was sent to the employer as enticement to recruit employees, The convenience of which was a closer parking space you safety are going to and from her vehicle.

Video (Windows media) file available on-line from Rutgers University Library

A-59-12 Cheryl Hersch v. County of Morris (071433)

Note: See also Burdette v Harrah’s Atlantic City, 2014 WL 184412 (N.J.Super. A.D. 2014) affirming compensability of an employee’s injuring occurring in a parking lot owned and operated by the employer.
“Because the Act is humanitarian social legislation, it is to be liberally construed in favor of coverage, for the protection of employees. Valdez v. Tri–State Furniture, 374 N.J.Super. 223, 232 (App.Div.2005); see also Zahner v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 321 N.J.Super. 471, 477 (App.Div.1999) (noting the courts’ liberal construction of the Act's provisions in favor of employees to accomplish its “beneficent purposes”).”

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Occupational pulmonary case dismissed by court for lack of evidence

A New Jersey Appellate Court dismissed an occupational pulmonary claim for lack of credible evidence. The court reversed an award of 5% permanent partial pulmonary disability of a claim filed by employee loaded and unloaded baggage for US Airways.

In its decision, the court found that there was a lack of credible evidence proving both exposure as well as medical findings and factual evidence that would be able to meet the criteria to establish a claim for an occupational disability. The worker alleges that between 1987 and 2008 he worked in areas that lacked ventilation and there was an exposure to two fumes.

The petitioner testified that his condition did not affect his ability to work and that he was able to volunteer for overtime work. Over the 10 years that the claimant worked for the employer he did not report a condition to his employer, did not seek medical treatment from an allergist or a pulmonologist.
Furthermore, the medical expert who testified on behalf of of the petitioner, Dr. Malcolm Hermele, relied only upon x-ray findings demonstrating"Increased interstitial markings," and pulmonary function testing. There were no clinical signs by way of wheezing, rales or rhonchi.

Respondents medical expert, Dr. Benjamin Saperstein, reported that the physical examination of the petitioner was "perfectly normal." Dr. Saperstein also testified that Dr. Hermele’s X-ray was of poor quality.

In reviewing the record below, the appellate tribunal, concluded that the judges decision below lacked credible findings to sustain a claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits. The court focused upon the statutory authority of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 that defines permanent disability and quality impartially character."Injuries such as minor lacerations, minor contusions, minor springs, and scars which do not constitute significant disfigurement, an occupational disease of the minor nature such as mild dermatitis and mild bronchitis show not constitute permanent disability within the meaning of this definition.”
The court relied upon the sentinel case of Fiore v. Consolidated Freightways, 140 NJ 452, 470 (1995) we're in the New Jersey Supreme Court interpret the occupational disease definition as established under N.J.S.A. 34:15-31, as "designated to compensate "diseases arising out of the workplace, and not the ordinary diseases of life.” 

Anthony DiFrabrizio v US Airways, ___A.3d___, 2013 WL 601534 (NJ App. Div. 2013) docket number 8-1497-12T4
Andrea Graf, Esq. (Appellant-US Airways)
Ricky E. Bagolie, Eq. (Appellant-Anthony DiFrabrizio)
….
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.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

New Jersey Supreme Court rules state must begin allowing same-sex marriages

Statutory dependency in workers' compensation claims will have an expanded meaning on Monday when same-sex marriages are allowed beginning on Monday in New Jersey. Today's post is shared from jurist.org.

The New Jersey Supreme Court [official website] on Friday ruled [text, PDF] that the state must begin recognizing same-sex marriages. The court declined to issue a stay on a lower court's decision [text, PDF] pending appeal. The lower court ruling found that, in light of US v. Windsor [SCOTUSBlog backgrounder; JURIST report], the status of civil unions deprive same-sex couples of federal benefits enjoyed by married couples. That ruling was challenged [JURIST report] by Governor Chris Christie [official website], who has argued recognition should be delayed pending a statewide referendum. Chief Justice Rabner rejected the state's claim that it will suffer irreparable harm if the order is allowed to be enforced, finding that no tangible harm can be found. The unanimous court held:

Because, among other reasons, the State has not shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits, the trial court's order directing State officials to permit same-sex couples, who are otherwise eligible, to enter into civil marriage starting on October 21, 2013 remains in effect. The lower court's ruling was allowed to stand, pending a hearing on the merits in January.

The heated debate regarding same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] is one of the most polarizing [JURIST op-ed] issues currently facing the US legal community....

[Click here to see the rest of this post]



Found on


Thursday, October 10, 2013

NJ Work Environment Council Says State at Risk from Chemical Disasters

Today's post shared from http://www.njtvonline.org

New Jersey Work Environmental Council representatives say millions in the state are still at risk from major toxic chemical disasters.

At a Statehouse press conference today, the New Jersey Work Environment Council released a new 43-page report, entitled “Failure to Act,” which says thousands of New Jersey jobs and millions of residents are still at risk from toxic chemical disasters.

These findings come five years after the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection adopted rules to implement the NJ Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act that were supposed to reduce that risk.
Photo by Dari Kotzker.
The author of the report found that 99 facilities still use large quantities of highly hazardous chemicals that can pose a potential catastrophic safety and health risk for millions of people. Many facilities failed to consider solutions for using safer chemicals and processes which already exist and are successful, and a lack of enforcement from the Christie administration.

Some recommendations include stopping facility management from declaring safer technology reviews as secret, require facility management to better document their claims that adopting safer chemicals and technologies are not feasible, and to withdraw the DEP “waiver rule” that allows the agency to not enforce the IST provisions of the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act.

Other speakers spoke of the potentially dangerous risks workers, first responders, nurses and...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Friday, October 4, 2013

Hearing set for N.J. SC nominee

Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com


A hearing has been scheduled for one of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s state Supreme Court nominees.

According to NewsWorks, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for Oct. 17 on Judge Faustino Fernandez-Vina’s nomination to the state’s high court.
Fernandez-Vina

Christie, whose previous attempts to fill the vacant seats on the state’s high court have failed, nominated Fernandez-Vina in August.
The Cuban-born Republican has served as a judge on the New Jersey Superior Court since July 2004.

“In the words of the late Sen. John Adler, Judge Fernandez-Vina had ‘the highest level of competence and he’s just the total package,’” Christie said in August.

“Last year Chief Justice (Stuart) Rabner named Judge Fernandez-Vina the assignment judge of the Camden Vicinage. At that time, the chief justice said the following, ‘Judge Fernandez-Vina brings to the position of assignment judge a wealth of experience, a proven, practical approach to addressing issues, superb judgment and the respect of the bench and bar.’ Those are his words not mine.”
Christie said he couldn’t agree more.

“Beyond his time in public life Judge Fernandez-Vina had 22 years of private sector legal experience where he tried in excess of 100 cases and was a certified civil trial attorney certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court,” the governor said, noting...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Judge Orders New Jersey to Allow Gay Marriage

Dependency benefits under the NJ workers' compensation system are going to expand.

A New Jersey judge ruled on Friday that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, saying that not doing so deprives them of rights that were guaranteed by the United States Supreme Court in June.
It is the first time a court has struck down a state’s refusal to legalize same-sex marriage as a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling, and with lawsuits pending in other states, it could presage other successful challenges across the country.
The decision was a rebuff to Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who vetoed a bill passed by the Legislature last year that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. His office said it would appeal to the state’s highest court. And he is likely to seek a stay preventing same-sex marriages from beginning on Oct. 21, as the judge ordered.
New Jersey was particularly ripe for a challenge after the Supreme Court ruling, because of a previous ruling by the state’s highest court in 2006. In that decision, in the case Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples were entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage. But the court stopped short of saying they had a fundamental right to marry, and in an unusual step instructed the Legislature to define how to confer equal protection.
“The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts,” Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Blowing the Whistle on Unsafe Workplace Conditions Gets a Boost

The New Jersey Supreme Court gave a boost to whistleblowers who challenge employers. The Court in a 4 to 2 decision held that an employee who becomes the victim of employer retaliation for engaging in protected whistle-blowing activities, can file a wage-loss claim without proving constructive discharge.

An employee at DuPont Chambers Works for thirty years reported that phosgene gas, a highly toxic and reactive substance, was being handled in a dangerous fashion. The employee, who reported the unsafe workplace condition to the headquaters of DuPont buut became a target of employer harassment and suffered the residuals of psychological disability

Justice Albin, delivering the opinon of the Court stated: "If an employer engages in unlawful retaliation, then it is accountable for the damages proximately caused to the employee."

Donelson v. DuPont Chambers Works, A-112-09, Decided June 9, 2011 (NJ 2011)