Pabst Brews a Legal Storm

On April 15, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that will reverberate through asbestos litigation, workers’ compensation law, and premises liability for years to come. In Estate of Carol Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Co., 2026 WI 12, the court held that a brewery owner could be found liable under Wisconsin’s Safe Place Statute for a steamfitter’s fatal mesothelioma, even though the worker was employed by an independent contractor, not by Pabst. The decision affirms a $6.9 million judgment, including punitive damages, and clarifies important principles governing the rights of workers exposed to occupational hazards on third-party premises.

Deadly factory fire again underlines importance of Bangladesh Accord

Updated Analysis: Factory Fires, Worker Safety, and the Workers' Compensation Fallout

Gelman on Workers' Compensation Law 2026 Update Now Available

Jon Gelman's newly revised and updated treatise on Workers' Compensation Law 2026 has been published by Thomson Reuters of Eagan, MN. This marks the 40th annual supplement to the New Jersey Practice Series on Workers' Compensation Law. The treatise is the most comprehensive, research-integrated work, on Workers' Compensation law, and is fully integrated with Westlaw.

Workers' Compensation Bar Prevails

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirms the exclusivity of workers' compensation in a workplace-fall case.

Navigating the Complexities of Workers' Compensation Exclusivity in New Jersey

The recent decision in Lopez v. Corozal Auto Repair Inc., a case heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, provides valuable insights into the intricate legal landscape of workers' compensation law. Specifically, the court delved into the critical issue of the exclusivity rule and its narrow exceptions, particularly focusing on intentional wrong claims under NJSA 34:15-8.

NJ Supreme Court Limits Employer Insurance Coverage for Worker Injuries

In a recent decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the scope of insurance coverage for employers facing lawsuits from injured workers. The case Dionicio Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring LLA addresses whether an employer's liability insurance policy covers claims of gross negligence, recklessness, and intentional misconduct brought by an employee who has already received workers' compensation benefits.

Intentional Tort v Negligence

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.

No Duty to Defend Intentional Tort Claim

In a per curiam opinion, the NJ Appellate Division affirmed that a workers’ compensation insurance company is not required to defend an intentional tort claim following a Section 20 resolution.

Trench Injury Not an Intentional Wrong

A Federal Court held that injuries sustained while cleaning a trench conveyor trim removal system at a paper manufacturing facility did not meet the threshold test for an intentional tort.

Not A Violation of Public Policy

In rejecting an employee’s attempt to go forward with a lawsuit directly against an employer, the NJ Appellate Division ruled, in an unreported case*, that an employee, in a novel argument,  may assert the “violation of public policy” as an allegation.

Dual Employment Status Bars Double Recovery

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.

Injury Caused by Defeated Machine Guard Results in OSHA Fine of $159,522

An employee working at Crystal Finishing Systems Inc.’s aluminum extrusion facility in Weston was hospitalized with serious injuries after being struck by a puller machine while trying to unjam a piece of aluminum.

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. 

The Exclusivity Rule Is Not A Bar to a Discrimination Action

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that an employer could be liable under both the Law Against Discrimination Act [LAD] and the Worker's Compensation Act (WCA). Court reasoned that the dual remedies can work in harmony as they are both statutory claims. The Court noted that the common law remedies of the LADs are not prohibited by the WCA since they are statutory in nature. By allowing both claims to go forward, a worker is not limited to the statutory caps for recovery under the Worker's Compensation Act.

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.

Lessons from Asbestos Litigation Apply to COVID Claims

The rapid emergence of COVID-19 creates new challenges for the nation’s patchwork of state run workplace benefit delivery systems. This paper draws a comparison between COVID claims and asbestos claims, the “Largest and Longest” wave of occupational disease claims in the United States. The comparison offers insight into avoiding past economic, administrative and benefit delivery pitfalls. The lessons from asbestos claims provide an insight into maintaining a sustainable workers’ compensation system to meet the surge of COVID claims.

Better Chemistry Through Regulation

The newly released movie, Dark Waters, provides a dramatic insight into the corporate disregard to human safety and life. The film, to be nationally released this weekend, puts into focus the chemical industry's utter disregard for human life that is compounded by the lack of governmental regulation of an out-of-control business.

Horseplay Is Not an Intentional Tort

Pranks at work may be considered “arising out of the course of employment” and compensable events. Those same injuries are not considered intentional events and would not give rise to cause a civil action against an employer for damages for pain and suffering. 

Medical Treatment is an Exclusive Remedy Not a Reasonable Accommodation

The NJ Supreme Court has held that the provision of medical treatment does not equate to a "reasonable accommodation", therefore an employee cannot claim under the Law Against Discrimination [LAD] that failure to provide medical care was actionable. The provision of medical treatment is an exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Preventing Occupational Disease: NJ Governor Murphy Supports a Fracking Ban

The State of New Jersey now supports a ban on fracking. NJ Governor Pat Murphy recognized the health and environmental consequences of using this process to explore and mine for natural gas.