Counsel Fee of $123,415 Deemed Excessive by the Appellate Division

The NJ Appellate Court reversed and remanded a claim where the Judge of Compensation awarded a counsel fee to the claimant’s attorney $123,415. The reviewing tribunal deemed the fees based on a permanency award, a motion for medical and temporary benefits, and a motion for enforcement inconsistent with the reasonable method in determining fees.

Paterson NJ Employers Face $518K in OSHA Fines

The U.S. Department of Labor has issued citations to three New Jersey contractors who willfully exposed employees to potentially lethal dangers by allowing them to work near energized power lines at a Paterson worksite.

Penalties for Delay in Payment Excessive

Waiting for timely payment of a workers’ compensation award can sometimes be a frustrating experience for an injured worker. The penalties assessed for the delay in paying a workers’ compensation award were an issue of first impression reviewed by the NJ Appellate Division.

OSHA Cites New Jersey Contractor For Disregarding Fall Protection Requirements

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited Brutus Construction Inc. for exposing employees to fall and other safety hazards at a worksite in Souderton, Pennsylvania. The company faces $181,699 in penalties.

Judicial Enforcement is Limited in Workers’ Compensation Claims

The enforcement provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act [WCA] are strictly limited. Judges of Compensation are mandated to follow the statute, regulations and the specific facts in addressing enforcement issues.

NJ Uninsured Fund Cracks Down on Uninsured Employers

It has been reported tat the NJ Uninsured Fund is vigorously seeking reimbursement for assessments and penalties from employers who do not have workers' compensation insurance. 

In a recent case, a former employer was required to reach a deal with the NJ Attorney

General's Office to repay $111,813.00. It was reported that the former employer had to mortgage his house for repayment in order to avoid a potential 18 month prison term and a $10,000 fine in addition to the assessment.

Click here to read: Franklin Lakes business owner must mortgage home to avoid jail in workers compensation case

Employer Responsible For Payment of Counsel Fees On Penalty

"... a judge of compensation must award counsel fees in addition to a penalty when an employer fails to make timely payment of temporary disability benefits and the appropriate standard to fashion the reasonable attorneys' fees allowed by statute. We hold that an award of attorneys' fees is mandatory and the judge of compensation is not limited by the statutory formula governing fee awards following an award of benefits. See N.J.S.A. 34:15-64.

"...a petitioner who resorts to section 28.1 to force payment of temporary disability benefits receives not only the 25% penalty but also reasonable legal fees incurred "as a result of and in relation to [the] delay[ ] or refusal[ ]." The fee is not subject to the 20% limitation of section 64, and shall be calculated in accordance with the standard factors for constructing a fee award.


Petitioner was represented by NJ Super Lawyer, David Tykulsker, Esq.

KUBRA QUERESHI - v. CINTAS CORPORATION, 

--- A.2d ----, 2010 WL 2132441 (N.J.Super.A.D.), Decided My 28, 2010. Click here to read more about penalties. Click here to read more about workers' compensation claims.

NJ Aims to Speed up Uninsured Penalties

The NJ Legislature is considering speeding up the processing of penalties and assessments against uninsured employers. Bills are pending before both houses of the legislature.


"This bill amends the workers’ compensation law to require that the Director of Workers’ Compensation shall, in any case in which an award of compensation payable by an uninsured employer or an assessment has been ordered by the director, file with the Clerk of the Superior Court a statement of the findings and judgment of the workers’ compensation judge or a certified copy of the director's order.  Upon that filing, the statement or order, as the case may be, shall have the same effect and may be collected and docketed in the same manner as judgments rendered in causes tried in the Superior Court.


"Under current law, the director is not permitted to make the filing until 45 days after payment is due and 10 days after the uninsured employer fails to comply with any demand to deposit with the director the estimated value of the compensation, and 20 days after orders by the director to pay any assessments for failure to pay.  The bill requires, rather than permits, the director to make the filing, and requires that the filing be made without the delays currently imposed.

Identical Bill Number: S2495    Quijano, Annette   as Primary Sponsor Barnes, Peter J., III   as Primary Sponsor Moriarty, Paul D.   as Primary Sponsor Egan, Joseph V.   as Co-Sponsor Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr.   as Co-Sponsor Vas, Joseph   as Co-Sponsor
1/15/2009 Introduced, Referred to Assembly Labor Committee 1/26/2009 Reported out of Assembly Committee, 2nd Reading 5/21/2009 Passed by the Assembly (76-0-0) 5/21/2009 Received in the Senate without Reference, 2nd Reading Statement - ALA 1/26/09 - 1 pages PDF Format    HTML Format Introduced - 3 pages PDF Format    HTML Format Committee Voting: ALA  1/26/2009  -  r/favorably  -  Yes {9}  No {0}  Not Voting {0}  Abstains {0}  -  Roll Call Egan, Joseph V. (C) - Yes Evans, Elease (V) - Yes Dancer, Ronald S. - Yes DeAngelo, Wayne P. - Yes Doherty, Michael J. - Yes Oliver, Sheila Y. - Yes Quijano, Annette - Yes Scalera, Frederick - Yes Webber, Jay - Yes Session Voting: Asm.  5/21/2009  -  3RDG FINAL PASSAGE   -  Yes {76}  No {0}  Not Voting {4}  Abstains {0}  -  Roll Call Addiego, Dawn Marie - Yes Albano, Nelson T. - Yes Amodeo, John F. - Yes Angelini, Mary Pat - Yes Barnes, Peter J., III - Yes Biondi, Peter J. - Yes Bramnick, Jon M. - Yes Burzichelli, John J. - Yes Caputo, Ralph R. - Yes Carroll, Michael Patrick - Yes Casagrande, Caroline - Yes Chiappone, Anthony - Yes Chiusano, Gary R. - Yes Chivukula, Upendra J. - Yes Conaway, Herb, Jr. - Yes Conners, Jack - Yes Coutinho, Albert - Yes Coyle, Denise M. - Yes Cruz-Perez, Nilsa - Yes Cryan, Joseph - Yes Dancer, Ronald S. - Yes DeAngelo, Wayne P. - Yes DeCroce, Alex - Yes DiMaio, John - Yes Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr. - Yes Doherty, Michael J. - Yes Egan, Joseph V. - Not Voting Evans, Elease - Yes Giblin, Thomas P. - Yes Green, Jerry - Yes Greenstein, Linda R. - Yes Greenwald, Louis D. - Yes Gusciora, Reed - Yes Handlin, Amy H. - Yes Holzapfel, James W. - Yes Jasey, Mila M. - Yes Johnson, Gordon M. - Yes Lampitt, Pamela R. - Yes Love, Sandra - Not Voting Malone, Joseph R., III - Yes McHose, Alison Littell - Yes McKeon, John F. - Yes Merkt, Richard A. - Yes Milam, Matthew W. - Yes Moriarty, Paul D. - Yes Munoz, Nancy F. - Yes O'Scanlon, Declan J., Jr. - Yes Oliver, Sheila Y. - Yes Polistina, Vincent J. - Yes Pou, Nellie - Yes Prieto, Vincent - Yes Quigley, Joan M. - Yes Quijano, Annette - Yes Ramos, Ruben J., Jr. - Yes Rible, David P. - Yes Riley, Celeste M. - Yes Roberts, Joseph J., Jr. - Yes Rodriguez, Caridad - Yes Rooney, John E. - Yes Rudder, Scott - Yes Rumana, Scott T. - Yes Rumpf, Brian E. - Not Voting Russo, David C. - Yes Scalera, Frederick - Yes Schaer, Gary S. - Yes Smith, L. Harvey - Yes Spencer, L. Grace - Yes Stender, Linda - Yes Thompson, Samuel D. - Yes Tucker, Cleopatra G. - Yes Vainieri Huttle, Valerie - Yes Van Pelt, Daniel M. - Yes Vandervalk, Charlotte - Yes Vas, Joseph - Not Voting Voss, Joan M. - Yes Wagner, Connie - Yes Watson Coleman, Bonnie - Yes Webber, Jay - Yes Wisniewski, John S. - Yes Wolfe, David W. - Yes

.........
Click here to read more about uninsured  employers and workers' compensation.

New Jersey's New Workers' Compensation Enforcement Statute

Governor Corzine has now signed into law a new enforcement statute for workers' compensation coverage in New Jersey. The law amend NJSA 34:15-79 and allows the Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation a stop-work order and impose penalties of between $1,000 to $5,000 per day for non-compliance.

The broad legislation makes it a violation for an employer to misrepresent the status of an employee as an "independent contractor" or to knowingly provide misleading, incomplete or false information.

The Division is in the process of promulgating administrative rules and regulations for implementation of this legislation.

U.S. Department of Labor's OSHA proposes $2.78 million fine against Cintas Corp. following Tulsa, Okla., employee death in industrial dryer

U.S. Department of Labor's OSHA proposes $2.78 million fine against Cintas Corp. following Tulsa, Okla., employee death in industrial dryer Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio and Washington facilities also inspected

U.S. Department of Labor press releaseAugust 17, 2007

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch.search_form?p_doc_type=NEWS_RELEASES&p_toc_level=1&p_keyvalue=200708&p_status=CURRENT

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) today proposed $2.78 million in penalties against Ohio-based Cintas Corp. following an inspection into the March 2007 employee death at the Cintas laundry facility in Tulsa, Okla. The employee was killed when he fell into an operating industrial dryer while clearing a jam of wet laundry on a conveyor that carries the laundry from the washer into the dryer.
Cintas is the largest uniform supplier in North America, with more than 400 facilities employing more than 34,000 people. The facility in Tulsa has 160 employees.
"Plant management at the Cintas Tulsa laundry facility ignored safety and health rules that could have prevented the death of this employee," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke Jr.
Forty-two willful, instance-by-instance citations allege violations of the OSHA lockout/tagout standard for the failures to shut down and to lock out power to the equipment before clearing jams, and to train four employees responsible to clear jams that lockout/tagout applies and how to perform the operations. One repeat citation alleges the failure to protect employees from being struck or pinned by the conveyor. Three serious citations allege the failures to protect employees from falls, to have a qualified person inspect the lockout/tagout procedures and to certify the procedures as required.
In a separate case, OSHA today issued five repeat and two serious citations with penalties totaling $117,500 for violations of the lockout/tagout and machine guarding standards found at the Cintas Columbus, Ohio, facility. OSHA also has opened investigations in Arkansas and Alabama. Washington, an OSHA State Plan state, has issued four citations with proposed fines totaling $13,650, alleging violations for similar hazards at the Yakima Cintas facility.
A willful violation is one committed with intentional disregard of the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act or plain indifference to employee safety or health. A serious violation is one that could cause death or serious physical harm to employees, and the employer knew or should have known of the hazard.
Cintas has 15 working days from receipt of the citations to contest the citations and the proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.