NJ Supreme Court To Rule on Several Critical Issues

The NJ Supreme Court has before it three issues of critical importance concerning workers' compensation including: the standard of proof in a fatal heart claim; remedy for the failure of an insurance company to provide medical care, and the "exclusivity rule." These decisions have the potential to be landmark decisions.


1. Standard of Proof in a Fatal Heart Claim: Does the record support this workers' compensation claim under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.2, which sets the standard of proof governing claims based on injury or death from cardiovascular causes?


Workers' Compensation benefits were awarded for a pulmonary embolism causally related to sedentary work activity. A NJ Appellate Court awarded benefits for the development of a pulmonary embolism precipitated by the inactivity of sitting long hours at a desk job.

Certification granted: 2/14/12

Posted: 2/14/12

A-71-11 James P. Renner v. AT&T (068744)

2.  Remedy for the Failure of the Insurance Company to Provide Medical Care:

May an employee who suffered a work-related injury pursue a common-law cause of action against a workers’ compensation carrier for willful failure to comply with court orders compelling it to provide medical treatment when the delay or denial of treatment causes the employee’s condition to worsen?

The NJ Supreme is going to review the procedure to bring bad faith claims against employers and insurance companies in workers' compensation actions. The Court accepted for review a case holding that workers' compensation bad faith claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers' compensation hearing official.

Certification granted 6/7/11
Posted 6/10/11
Argued: 3/26/12
A-112-10 Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640)

3. 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 employer’s action constitute an “intentional wrong” that would preclude immunity under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 of the workers’ compensation statute?

NJ Courts have held that trench accidents were not a mere fact of industrial life and were beyond intent of Act's immunity provision. A claim was permitted directly against the employer in addition to the workers' compensation action. 

Certification granted 1/27/11

Posted 1/28/11

Argued: 10/12/11

A-69-10 Kenneth Van Dunk, Sr. v. Reckson Associates Realty Corp. (066949)

Related articles

• North Carolina: Jail Time for Uninsured Employers
• Health Benefits, US Supreme Court and Workers Compensation
• NJ Supreme Rules That Only a Physician Can Perform An EMG
• AIG Exits Workers Compensation As Comp Medical Issues Grow
• Maine Passes Laws Restricting Workers Compensation Benefits

• Federal RICO Claim May Not Be Preempted by a State Workers Compensation Act (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The New Non-Subscriber Opt-Out Plan Is Emerging As The Alternative to Traditional Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

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.

OSHA Sets H1N1 Flu Employer Responsibility Standard for Health Care Workers

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has  issued a compliance directive that clearly establishes a level of employer responsibility to health care workers to prevent the spread of H1N1 flu. The establishment of the standard may allow some injured workers to circumvent "the exclusivity doctrine" in workers' compensation and hold employers responsible in the civil justice system for resultant injury or death should the employer's fail to comply with is directive.


The "exclusivity doctrine" in workers' compensation limits an employers' responsibility to only scheduled workers' compensation benefits for harm caused to workers that "arises out of" and occurs "within the course of employment." Those benefits have become increasingly difficult to obtain for a multitude of reasons.


The OSGA directive closely follows the prevention guidance issue by The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to prevent the spread of H1N1 flu. The purpose of the compliance directive is "to ensure uniform procedures when conducting inspections to identify and minimize or eliminate high to very high risk occupational exposures to the 2009 H1N1 influenza A virus."


The CDC has reported that the H1N1 flu activity continues to be widespread in the US and remains above epidemic in proportion for the seventh consecutive week. Over 99% of all subtyped A viruses being reported to the CDC were 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses. A total of 171 deaths in children associated with the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection have been reported to the CDC.


OSHA announced, "In response to complaints, OSHA inspectors will ensure that health care employers implement a hierarchy of controls, and encourage vaccination and other work practices recommended by the CDC. Where respirators are required to be used, the OSHA Respiratory Protection standard must be followed, including worker training and fit testing. The directive also applies to institutional settings where some workers may have similar exposures, such as schools and correctional facilities."


"OSHA has a responsibility to ensure that the more than nine million frontline health care workers in the United States are protected to the extent possible against exposure to the virus," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "OSHA will ensure health care employers use proper controls to protect all workers, particularly those who are at high or very high risk of exposure."


To read more about workers' compensation and the H1N1 Flu click here.

Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule

A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had commenced for the day, limited the injured workers' recovery to workers' compensation benefits.  The "Exclusivity Rule" embodied in the Workers' compensation Act barred a separate cause of action by the injured worker against the co-employee.

"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

• Federal RICO Claim May Not Be Preempted by a State Workers Compensation Act

  ---

• NJ Supreme Court To Rule on Several Critical Issues

  ---

• OSHA fines Clifton, NJ, stucco contractor more than $108,000 for exposing workers to fall hazards

  ---

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)

….

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.

Related articles

• What to Do About Futile Critical Care (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• US Supreme Court Asked to Review MSP Preemption Issue (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• NJ Court Sets the Evidentiary Proof Standard for a Pulmonary - Cardiovascular Claim (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Despite backlogs, VA disability claims processors get bonuses (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Prostate Cancer: Now on the 9-11 Fund Compensable List (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

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).

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.

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.

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.'"

OSHA fines two companies $130,500 for trenching hazards at Kearny, NJ, site

Many workers' compensation accidents occur while working in trenches. The employer in NJ is insulated under the exclusivity doctrine from a claim for negligence. An employee's only remedy in many instances is only the NJ Workers' Compensation benefits.

VM Construction Inc., based in Miami, and Concrete Systems Inc., based in Sterling, were cited by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration for willful and repeat trenching hazards found at a Kearny work site. OSHA's November 2012 investigation was prompted by an imminent danger complaint that alleged workers 

English: Logo for the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

operated in an unprotected excavation 8 feet deep.

One willful violation, carrying a $28,000 penalty, was cited against VM Construction Inc. for those workers operating in an unprotected excavation. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. The construction company was also cited for one serious violation, with a $2,400 penalty, for failing to ensure a competent person inspected the excavation prior to allowing workers to enter. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Concrete Systems Inc., a concrete and masonry contractor, faces $100,100 in penalties for two repeat violations involving workers operating in an unprotected excavation and entering an excavation that was not inspected beforehand by a competent person. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. Similar violations were cited in 2008.

Because of the nature of the hazards and the violations cited, Concrete Systems has been placed in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. OSHA's SVEP focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations. Under the program, OSHA may inspect any of the employer's facilities if it has reasonable grounds to believe there are similar violations.

"Improperly protected trenches can collapse suddenly and with great force," said Kris Hoffman, director of OSHA's Parsippany Area Office. "OSHA implemented a trenching and excavation special emphasis program in the 1980s, so the industry is well aware of the safety regulations for trenching operations."

Detailed information on safeguards for excavation and trenching is available at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/trenchingexcavation/index.html.

The citations can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/ConcreteSystems_772381_0605_13.pdf* and http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/VMConstruction_770662_0605_13.pdf*.

 ......

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.  Click here now to submit a case inquiry.

Read more about trenches and workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation: Trench Safety a Focus of NIOSH

Oct 20, 2011

Recently NJ Courts have held that trench accidents were not a mere fact of industrial life and were beyond intent of Act's immunity provision. A claim was permitted directly against the employer in addition to the workers' ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the

Jun 27, 2012

The issuance of a willful OSHA violation against employer (trench collapse injury) was insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, so the Court examined the totality of the circumstances of the accident and applies ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Related articles

• OSHA Moves to Protect Temporary Workers
• OSHA's Intent Is Not To Preempt State Tort Law Claims by the HazCom Standard
• Buying a Cheap Shirt at Wal-Mart? Consider the real cost (in lives).
• US Publishes Guidelines to Minimize Distracted Driving
• Oklahoma Opt-Out Workers' Compensation Law Enacted

The Going and Coming Rule: Parking Lot Injury Held Not Compensable

A NJ appellate court ruled that an employee who was severely injured in a parking lot as a result of a slip and fall was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits since the injury occurred “off the premises” and the employer did not control the employee’s parking.

The Court also ruled, that even though a separate corporation that owned the parking lot, the corporate veil could not be pierced in absence of the proof of fraud by the employer. The employer merely rented the store premises and not the parking lot. 

Cottone v Medical Supply Corp. and NJ Manufacturers (Intervener) 
2013 WL 1136114 (N.J.Super.A.D.) Decided March 20, 2013

Professor John F Burton Jr: Illinois Proposed Changes Are Obectionable

The former chair of the 1972 National Commission on Workers' Compensation told the Illinois legislature yesterday that the proposed changes to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act will degrade the system and reduce benefits to injured workers. Profession Emeritis John F. Burton, Jr., yesterday presented a statement to the Committee of the Whole before the Illinois House of Representatives.

Professor John F. Burton Jr.

OSHA Sanctions Chicago Company With $325,700 in Fines for Safety Violations

OSHA cites A. Finkl & Sons in Chicago for 26 safety violations, including failing to maintain cranes and places the company into the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited specialty metal forgings producer A. Finkl & Sons Co. with 26 safety violations at the company's Chicago facility, including two willful violations that involve failing to provide fall protection around open pits and rectify multiple hazards found in crane inspections. Proposed penalties total $352,700.

OSHA initiated an inspection in February after receiving a complaint alleging that cranes used in the facility were in disrepair, including having malfunctioning hoisting brakes, and that powered industrial trucks were being operated by untrained workers.

Specifically, the willful violations are failing to ensure that open pits are guarded by standard railings and/or covers to protect employees from falling in, and failing to correct deficiencies identified by crane inspections such as missing bolts, inoperable radio controls, and problems with bridges, trolleys and main hoist brakes. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.

Twenty-two serious violations involve failing to install hoist guards on industrial cranes, ensure that independent hoisting units on all cranes that handle hot metal have at least two holding brakes, ensure that all crane trolleys and bridges are equipped with brakes that have ample thermal capacity for the equipment's frequency of operation and which prevent the impairment of functions due to overheating, ensure that a thorough inspection of all crane ropes is completed, ensure that loads are lifted in a manner to prevent swinging on cranes and have a responsible person on-site with knowledge of cranes. Other violations include failing to ensure that ladders are placed in a manner that provides secure footing for workers, store liquefied petroleum gas containers away from stairways or other exit areas, adequately outline the rules for lockout/tagout procedures, guard live electrical parts over 50 volts, protect electrical conductors entering boxes from abrasion, and visually inspect portable plug- and cord-connected equipment for defects. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

One repeat violation involves failing to ensure that powered industrial trucks are examined prior to being placed into service as well as keep the trucks in a clean condition, free from lint, excess oil and grease. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. A similar violation was cited in 2006 at the same facility.

One other-than-serious violation is failing to create, certify and post the OSHA 300A summary log of injuries and illnesses or an equivalent form for the year 2011 by Feb. 1, 2012. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

"A. Finkl & Sons Co. has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the safety of its employees. When employers fail in their responsibility to provide a safe workplace, OSHA will take all necessary action to protect workers on the job," said Nick Walters, OSHA's regional administrator in Chicago.

Due to the willful and repeat violations and the nature of the hazards, OSHA has placed A. Finkl & Sons Co. in the agency's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. The program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations. For more information about the program, visit http://s.dol.gov/J3.

The company previously has been inspected by OSHA 24 times since 1970, with 17 inspections resulting in citations for various violations. The two most recent previous inspections, in 2006 and 2007, resulted in citations for willful and repeat violations related to fire and fall hazards.

The citations can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/AFinklandSons_191122.pdf.

A. Finkl & Sons Co. employs 398 workers at its Chicago plant. The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

More articles about OSHA

OSHA cites Bloomfield NJ contractor for fall hazards

Jul 21, 2012

"What we found at this work site were hazards unacceptably similar to those cited during prior inspections at the employer's other sites," said Diana Cortez, OSHA's area director in Tarrytown. "It's clear that this employer must...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the

Jun 27, 2012

A finding of a willful OSHA violation is not conclusive in determining whether the employer committed an intentional wrong for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act. Instead, it is one factor among the totality of ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: OSHA Cites Correctional Facility for ...

Jun 13, 2012

"This employer knowingly put workers at risk of injury or death by failing to implement well-recognized measures that would protect employees from physical assaults by inmates," said Clyde Payne, OSHA's area director in ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

OSHA Saves Lives & Reduces Workers Compensation Costs 26%

Jul 07, 2012

"Regarding the importance and effectiveness of OSHA's enforcement programs, recent studies confirm the effectiveness of enforcement in ensuring the safety and health of workers. We were very heartened by research from ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Related articles

• Flavoring Workers At Higher Risk fo Alzheimers
• Passive Noise is Hazardous to Your Health
• Willful OSHA Violation Alone Not Enough Alone to Circumvent the Exclusivity Doctrine

Passive Noise is Hazardous to Your Health

Estacion Times Square-42ST, del metro de NY
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The majority of binaural hearing losses are caused by exposure to loud noise over an extended period of time. Such occupational exposures to noisy work environments are compensable and workers' compensation benefits are common paid for such conditions.


The NY Times reports today that passive nose is becoming a major factor that is causing binaural hearing losses.



"Your ears don't get more tolerant. Your psyche gets more tolerant."
DR. GORDON HUGHES, director for clinical trials at the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, on the dangers of increasingly higher noise levels in public places.

Read the complete articles:
Working or Playing Indoors, New Yorkers Face an Unabated Roar (NY Times)A Sound Tour of NY City (NY Times)
....
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.Related Blog Posts

Workers' Compensation: Cell Phone Hearing Use Results in $1.2 ...

Mar 27, 2012

Workers suffering from noise-induced hearing loss may also experience continual ringing in the ears, called "tinnitus". In addition, workers who are exposed to noise sometimes complain of nervousness, sleeplessness and ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: Can You Repeat That Please?

Mar 25, 2010

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has reported that an estimated 72% of all noise induced hearing losses occur in the manufacturing sector which employs 16 million people. Worse than that, most...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

OSHA Advances Recording of Musculoskeletal Disorders

Mar 23, 2011

Prior to 2001, OSHA's injury and illness logs contained a column for repetitive trauma disorders that included hearing loss and many kinds of MSDs. In 2001, OSHA proposed separating hearing loss and MSDs into two ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

California: Did Workers' Comp Reform Go Too Far?

Oct 07, 2007

Loss of an eye: California ranks lowest in the nation! Hearing loss in one ear: California ranks lowest in the nation! Loss of a foot: California ranks second lowest in the nation! Loss of a leg at hip: California ranks sixth lowest in ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Related articles

• Canada To Study the Health Effects of Wind Turbines

  ---

• Exclusivity Rule Adopted in MDL Aviation Law Case

  ---

• The High Price of Drugs: Upscale Pricing By Doctors

  ---

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.

US FDA: Designation for CRS-207 in Mesothelioma Treatment

Today's post is shared from finance.yahoo.com/news

Aduro Biotech, Inc. today announced that the Office of Orphan Product Development of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to CRS-207, a novel immuno-oncology product candidate, for the treatment of mesothelioma. This designation potentially allows Aduro seven years of limited marketing exclusivity in the United States if it is the first to obtain FDA marketing approval for mesothelioma, and qualifies the company for grant funding to offset the cost of clinical testing as well as tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the Biologics License Application user fee. The FDA previously granted orphan designation to CRS-207 and GVAX Pancreas for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

“This is an important step for Aduro as we continue to develop CRS-207 for this very difficult to treat cancer,” said Dirk Brockstedt, Ph.D., senior vice president of research and development at Aduro. “We believe the combination of CRS-207 together with chemotherapy may offer the promise of a potential new therapeutic regimen for patients suffering from mesothelioma. Importantly, we plan to report additional data from the ongoing Phase 1b study later this year.”

Click here to read the entire article

….

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). 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.

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.

Pending Before the NJ Supreme Court

A-89-13 Estate of Myroslava Kotsovska v. Saul Liebman (073861)
Should the trial court have transferred this wrongful death and survival action to the Division of Workers' Compensation for a determination of the decedent's employment status where defendant raised the workers' compensation bar as an affirmative defense?
Certification granted: 5/19/14
Posted: 5/20/14
Argued: 3/16/15

Case below:

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Appellate Division.

ESTATE OF Myroslava KOTSOVSKA, by Olena KOTSOVSKA, Administrator, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.

Saul LIEBMAN, Defendant–Appellant.

Argued March 20, 2013. Decided Dec. 26, 2013.

Background:  Estate of driver's home health aid filed wrongful death action against driver, stemming from accident in which driver accelerated vehicle while parking, hitting home health aid. Following jury trial, the Superior Court, Law Division, Union County,  2012 WL 3965151, determined home health aid was independent contractor, found in favor of estate, and denied driver's motion for new trial. Driver appealed.

Holdings:  The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Accurso, J.A.D., held that: 

(1) Division of Workers' Compensation was proper forum for resolution of whether home health aid was driver's employee;

(2) jury instruction as to whether home health aid was employee or independent contractor did not adequately convey the law;

(3) taking judicial notice that person would suffer pain if leg was traumatically amputated while conscious was harmless error; and

(4) damages would be preserved pending remand.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Related articles

• A More Efficient Process (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Exclusivity Rule: Court Holds Risk of Death Contemplated by Legislature (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• NJ State Bar Association Opposes Workers' Compensation COLA Bill (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Spoliation of Evidence: Sanctions Reversed in Employer Fraud Case (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• High Compensation Medical Costs Raises Concern in New Hampshire (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

The Next Wave: N.H.L. Players Sue League Over Head Injuries

Occupational illness claims have been a traditional battleground in workers' compensation for larger and more significant lawsuits and dynamic changes in the safety of the workplace induced by economics.

From the lack of the incorporation of occupational claims in the 1911 model workers' compensation acts, in the 1950's, employers and their insurance companies sought refuge under the "exclusivity bar" of the. workers' compensation act to shield themselves from negligence actions for silicosis and asbestosis claims.

The creativity of claimant's lawyers, and the blatant intentional tort acts of unscrupulous asbestos companies, brought forth a sweeping change in the economic balance as claimants used the civil justice system to establish an avenue for adequate compensation for asbestos victims (lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma claims).

Asbestos litigation, "longest running tort, continues today and is the perfect example of the societal benefits of a working civil justice system.  In fact, the same dynamic existed in: tobacco litigation, lead paint litigation, latex litigation and has been repeated many times over.

The civil justice system, not the workers' compensation system, established an economic incentive establishing a safer workplace for workers and their families.

It is more than obvious that contact sports are seeing the next wave of litigation as the employers and their insurance companies accelerate the cycle, by barring professional athletic players from even seeking workers' compensation benefits, ie. California.

Since it appears that no safe helmet can be manufactured to protect the mayhem of some contact sports, the business of sports will be the next "industry" to experience economic incentives to make the workplace safer. The higher education system will just have to find another economic engine to fund colleges and university and stop luring students to play dangerous sports in hope of winning the professional sports lottery.

First football, now hockey, are emerging targets of the civil justice system as the economics of safety takes hold and the need for safety takes hold. Today's post is shared from the nytimes.com.

Ten former N.H.L. players sued the league Monday for negligence and fraud, saying the sport’s officials should have done more to address head injuries but instead celebrated a culture of speed and violence.

The players, who were in the league in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, filed their suit in federal court in Washington. One of the lead lawyers is Mel Owens, a former N.F.L. player who has represented scores of other retired players in workers’ compensation cases.

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

….

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.

Found on

Related articles

• Red Bird Express sued for allegedly refusing to rehire injured worker (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Safety Violations Matter: Wisconsin Court Reaffirms Basis for Employer Safety Penalties (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• California Workers' Compensation Rates Going Up in 2014 (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Where is the Deep Water? (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• John Burton Reports on Workers' Compensation Insurance Industry Underwriting Results (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• State panel rejected injury claim by NFL's Dorsett (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Florida rejects workers' compensation rate hike (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)