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.

California Supreme Court Bars Household Contact Covid Claims

Today, the California Supreme Court decided that the Workers’ Compensation Act [WCA] did not bar a derivative claim. However, using a public policy rationale, it did not extend an employer's duty of care to an employee's household contacts who contracted COVID-19.

California Supreme Court to File its Decision in a Derivative Immunity Claim Tomorrow

The California Supreme Court will file its much-anticipated decision regarding KUCIEMBA v. VICTORY WOODWORKS, Case: S274191, on Thursday, July 6, 2023, at 10:00 am (PT). The Court had accepted the request of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to answer a question of state law regarding employers' liability in COVID claims. Briefs are now available online (See below).

The Exclusivity Rule Does Not Bar Claims of a Minor

A minor may elect to file a negligence action against an employer and not be prohibited by the Exclusivity Rule that typically bars employee claims against their employers.

Dual Employment and the Proposed NLRB Joint-Employer Standard

Workers’ compensation claims may be pursued against two companies if there is found to be joint employment. While case law defines employment status, the US National Labor Relations Board has issued a proposed Rule to substantiate a dual employer status.

California Supreme Court Agrees to Review COVID Take Home Liability Case

The California Supreme Court has accepted for review the question of whether the workers’ compensation act bars a claim against an employer by a household contact of an employee who contacted COVID at work. The court granted the request, made under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that the court will decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

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.

Household Contacts can sue an employer for harm caused by COVID

The longstanding principle that household contacts of an employee can sue an employer for harm has been upheld in a California claim. An employee who brought home the COVID virus and infected a household member, in this case, death, was the basis of a direct case by the deceased family member’s estate 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.

Over 46% of High-risk Adults Are Endangered by Workplace Exposures to SARA-CoV2

A recent study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) this week finds that workplace-exposures to SARS-CoV2 endanger, not only the workers but also imperil the lives of their household contacts. 

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.

Top NJ Workers' Compensation Decisions of 2019

It has been an active 2019 for workers’ compensation decisions in New Jersey. There have been two NJ Supreme Court opinions and three reported Appellate Court opinions that are noteworthy. From a review of the pending docket the NJ Supreme Court will be reviewing at least 3 very significant issues in 2020 invoking workers’ compensation issues.

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

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.

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.

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.

Just Published: 2018 Update - Gelman on Workers' Compensation Law

Jon Gelman’s newly revised and updated 2018 treatise on Workers’ Compensation Law is now available from by West Group of Egan, MN within the next few weeks. The treatise is the most complete work available on NJ Workers’ Compensation law and integrated with WESTLAW™, the "most preferred online legal research service.'"

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.