Rules of Dismissal Governed by Equitable Principles

In reversing a dismissal in Workers’ Compensation a NJ Court applied equitable principles as well as the guidance of the rules of the civil justice system. The inability of counsel to appear for what the Appellate Court deemed to be justifiable cause (conflicted with his obligation to serve as a court-appointed arbitrator in another court), resulted in a reversal of the dismissal.

“No petition shall be dismissed for want of prosecution or for failure to form-

ally adjourn the cause, until after notice shall be served by the respondent on

the petitioner or his attorney that unless the cause is moved for hearing within

one month from the date of the service thereof, the claim will be considered

abandoned and the petition dismissed subject, however, to the right to have the

petition reinstated for good cause shown, upon application made to the deputy

commissioner before whom the matter was heard or to the Commissioner of Labor

within one year thereafter. No claim heretofore made shall be considered abandoned because the petition was dismissed under this section, if such petition

has been reinstated for good cause shown, and such petition shall be deemed to

have been dismissed without prejudice to further proceedings upon said petition,

and further proceedings thereon shall be as effective as though said petition

had not been dismissed.” N.J.S.A. 34:15–51

The Court stated…… “Irrespective of the absence of express statutory authority and a one-year limitation imposed upon such a reopening in certain circumstances, N.J.S.A. 34:15–54, it is abundantly clear that the Division has the inherent power, “comparable to that possessed by the courts (R.R. 4:62–2 [now R. 4:50] ), to re-open judgments for fraud, mistake, inadvertence, or other equitable ground.” Beese v. First National Stores, 52 N.J. 196, 200 (1968). See also Estelle v.  Red Bank Bd. of Ed., 14 N.J. 256 (1954); Stone v. Dugan Brothers of N.J., 1 N.J.Super. 13 (App.Div.1948).”

“In the present case, we initially note that petitioner’s counsel was unable to appear to oppose the motion to dismiss because the hearing date conflicted with his obligation to serve as a court-appointed arbitrator in another court. We are unable to determine on this record why, under these circumstances, counsel’s seemingly valid adjournment request was denied. Counsel was then served with an order that referenced not only N.J.S.A. 34:15–54, but also a requirement that the case could not be restored unless it was ready to be tried or settled. Although petitioner’s surgery finally occurred in September 2011, within the one-year statutory period, the case was not ready until the doctor’s report was received on May 2, 2012. Petitioner then promptly moved to restore the case two weeks later.

“Arguably these circumstances may suffice to warrant equitable relief under Rule 4:50–1(f), especially should respondent be unable to demonstrate prejudice due to the delay beyond the one-year statutory period.

“In deciding the motion, the judge of compensation was clearly of the mistaken belief that he was unable to grant relief “[a]bsent specific authority in the statute.” To the contrary, the matter may be reopened if it qualifies under Rule 4:50–1(f), and even then, if the motion is found to have been brought within a reasonable time. See Hyman, supra, 157 N.J.Super. at 517. We conclude that this determination “is best made in the first instance by the judge of compensation, on a record fully developed for that purpose and accompanied by adequate findings.” Ibid. Accordingly we remand for a further hearing consistent with this opinion.

Remanded.

N.J.Super.A.D.,2014.

Planes v. Village Townhouse

Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 6634885 (N.J.Super.A.D.)

….

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.

Related articles

• Case Remanded to Compensation Court to Determine Employment Status (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Court Holds a Misstatement Does Not Bar Compensability (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Spoliation of Evidence: Sanctions Reversed in Employer Fraud Case (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• NJ Supreme Court Hears Premises Rule Case (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Exclusivity Rule: Court Holds Risk of Death Contemplated by Legislature (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Medical pot covered by workers' comp, says appeals court (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Alleged Claim of Assault by Employer Results in a Dismissal (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Fla. appeals court says $33M in damages to smoker's widow not excessive (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Employee Sues Co-Worker Following Perfume Assault

An employee in Ohio who was denied a claim for workers' compensation benefits, has filed a lawsuit against her co-workers against her co-employees. With the workers' compensation claim have been rejected, the workers' compensation law would not act as a bar to such an action under the Exclusivity Doctrine.

In NJ an employee was permitted to bring a claim for workers compensation benefits. The NJ court reasoned in its opinion that the accident occurred in the course of her employment and arose out of her employment. The exposure at work was deemed a "neutral risk," one that was out of the control of the employee.

The fragrance and cosmetic industry is now the target of potential regulation as the State of Colorado is considering legislation to ban cosmetics that contain cancer producing substances. The cosmetic and fragrance industry is largely self-regulated.

Recently the California Attorney General filed a  lawsuit against the manufacturers of a cosmetic product that contained formaldehyde, a hazardous substance. The complaint alleges that the cosmetic company engaged in deceptive identification, advertising and promotional practices.

"Recent testing by the Oregon Health & Science University’s Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology and Oregon OSHA found between 6.3 and 11.8 percent formaldehyde in the solution. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel, a monitoring agency for cosmetic safety, states that formaldehyde is only safe at a level of less than 0.2 percent." Health Canada is warning Canadians that Brazilian Blowout Solution manufactured by Brazilian Blowout of California has been found to contain unacceptable levels of formaldehyde.

The Ohio employee, who is bringing the action against her co-workers, was hospitalized because of the exposure at work and now is forced to use an inhaler to relieve her respiratory symptoms.

Related articles

• Congresswoman Woolsey Calls For A GAO Study of Workers Compensation-Cites Insurance Company Cost Shifting (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Congress Told Workers Compensation is a Deteriorating System (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Dean Emily Spieler Requests Congress to Review The Workers' Compensation Disability Rating System (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

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.

Dedicated Bike Lanes Can Prevent On-The-Job Injuries

Traffic accidents are major factors in the death of workers on the job. A recent report from the American Public Health Association reports that separate cycling lanes will prevent accidents.

Objectives. We compared cycling injury risks of 14 route types and other route infrastructure features.

Methods. We recruited 690 city residents injured while cycling in Toronto or Vancouver, Canada. A case-crossover design compared route infrastructure at each injury site to that of a randomly selected control site from the same trip.

Results. Of 14 route types, cycle tracks had the lowest risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.02, 0.54), about one ninth the risk of the reference: major streets with parked cars and no bike infrastructure. Risks on major streets were lower without parked cars (adjusted OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.41, 0.96) and with bike lanes (adjusted OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.29, 1.01). Local streets also had lower risks (adjusted OR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.31, 0.84). Other infrastructure characteristics were associated with increased risks: streetcar or train tracks (adjusted OR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.8, 5.1), downhill grades (adjusted OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.7, 3.1), and construction (adjusted OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.3, 2.9).

Conclusions. The lower risks on quiet streets and with bike-specific infrastructure along busy streets support the route-design approach used in many northern European countries. Transportation infrastructure with lower bicycling injury risks merits public health support to reduce injuries and promote cycling.

Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300762?journalCode=ajph&&

Read more about motor vehicle accidents and workers' compensation

Workers' Compensation: Parking Constitutes Arrival at Work

Jul 25, 2012

Court Rules Site of Accident Invokes Exclusivity Rule. English: Motor vehicle accident following a ve... A NJ appeals court ruled that a motor vehicle accident cause by a co-worker in the emplyers' parking lot, before work had.

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

Click It or Ticket Campaign --- May 23--June 5, 2011

May 23, 2011

In 2009, motor vehicle crashes resulted in approximately 23,000 deaths to passenger vehicle occupants (excluding motorcyclists), and 2.6 million occupants were treated for injuries in emergency departments in the United ...

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

Cell Phones Usage For Commercial Interstate Drivers to be Banned

Nov 29, 2011

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) proposes to restrict the use of hand-held mobile telephones, including hand-held cell phones, by drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) while operating in ...

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

OSHA To Fine Employers for Distracted Driving Accidents

Apr 18, 2011

OSHA will investigate motor vehicle accidents, including cell phone records, and will issue citations and fine employers where an accident involved texting while driving. While OSHA has juridiction over employers, and not ...

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

Related articles

• Dedicated Bike Lanes Can Cut Cycling Injuries in Half (theatlanticcities.com)
• New study highlights need for workplace interventions that reduce depression risk (scienceblogs.com)
• Chicago Bike Lane Envy Sweeps the Nation (streetsblog.net)

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. 

NJ Company Fined $52,000 by OSHA for Unprotected Trench

Employer name: D.S. Meyer Enterprises LLC, 34 Maple Ave. Waldwick, New Jersey

Site: 45 Waterview Blvd., Parsippany, New Jersey

Citations issued: On Feb. 29, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Parsippany Area Office issued citations for five serious and one willful violation.

Claim Permitted Against Employer For Concealment of Chemical Dangers

A Federal Court permitted a claim a claim by the estate of a former worker to advance against an his employer despite the exclusivity bar of the workers compensation act. The employer had not warned the employee of the potential deadly side effects of pesticides.


In satisfying the two prong (conduct and context) NJ test for an intentional tort against an employer, the employee's estate set forth that the employer had intentionally and fraudulently concealed information of the hazardous nature of the chemicals and substances that the employee worked with as an exterminator.


The employee, who applied pesticides for 11 years, was not furnished with adequate safety equipment and was not provided with warning materials available to the employer.


The court held that employer's conduct was substantially certain to cause injury or death. The estate filed a certification substantiating the events surrounding the exposure and death; material Safety Data Sheets; and expert reports. Where the conduct of the employer is actively misleading and illness and death were substantially certain to occur the employ can be held liable.


Where the conduct of the employer in not protecting the employee is more than a fact of industrial life and is "plainly beyond anything the Legislature intended the Workers' Compensation Act to immune," the compensation act is not an exclusive remedy against the employer.


The Court held that the employer "understood the hazardous nature of the chemicals but failed to provide the decedent with the equipment necessary to ensure his safety. ".... the employer turned a "blind eye to the risks inherent chemical in the use of the chemicals" and went as far as hiding those risks so that the employee was not aware of their existence. "Concealment is hardly an expected fact of life in industrial
employment."

Click Here For Complete Decision: Blackshear v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Civ. Action No. 10-3585 (KSH) (USDCT - NJ 2011)

For over 3 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

• Employee Allowed to Sue Employer for Negligence Resulting From an Occupational Exposure (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• A Proposal To Make The Workplace Safer (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The Gingrich Revival and The Future of Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Employers Face Liability For Cell Phone Accidents (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Commercial Driver Fatigue Questioned as a Pre-exisiting Condition?

Falling asleep at the wheel is a common cause of accidents for commercial drivers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration  (FMCSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation is exploring  the issue that such conditions as excessive  daytime sleepiness should be evaluated by medical examination in an effort to predict future probabilities of having a bad day at the wheel and potential crashes at the wheel because of sleepiness. 

If a sleep disorder can be identified and documented, that condition maybe determined to be a pre-exisiting medical condition. Apart from the third party liability that could be imposed upon an employer for identification and non-identification of the medical condition, the issue of an allocation for a pre-exisitng medical conditions (prior-functional credit) may exist in a workers' compensation claim as well as an event that can be attributed to a risk in the course of employment.

The term "prior functional credit" refers to the credit given to the employer, or to the employer's insurance carrier, for the loss of function of any part of the body which an employee had sustained before a subsequent injury or occupational disease for which the employer in question is responsible.  Over the years there have been dramatic changes enacted by the Legislature accompanied by varying interpretations by the courts with regard to the law addressing credits to be afforded to the employer for both non-work and work connected injuries.

The employer no longer takes an employee as they find them. Belth v. Anthony Ferrante & Son, Inc., 47 N.J. 38, 219 A.2d 168 (1966). An individual suffered from asbestosis and bronchitis, and medical testimony was presented by the petitioner's expert apportioning a percentage of the functional loss to cigarette smoking.  The employer was awarded a credit for the previous loss of function which could be attributed to the employee's cigarette smoking, since the legislatively enacted amendments permitted the employer to receive credit for an employee's prior loss of function involving the same body part affected by the compensable occupational disease regardless of whether compensation was received for the earlier injury.  In effect, the employer no longer takes employees as it finds them.  The court stated that the credit to employers for previous loss of function, whether work-related or not, was an incentive to encourage employers to hire workers with pre-existing disabilities.  Field v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 209 N.J.Super. 528, 507 A.2d 1209 (App.Div.1986), certif. denied 105 N.J. 531, 523 A.2d 172 (1986); Dafler v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 259 N.J.Super. 17, 611 A.2d 136 (App.Div.1992).

Additional questions may arise as to whether the risk is actually associated with the employment. The Court may also evaluate the risk associated with the employment task in evaluating compensability.  Where the risk was not enhanced by the business interests of the employer, and there was no exercise of control by the employer over the employee, the event is usually deemed to be non-compensable. If the risk in indeed removed from the course of employment then the employer may be denied the exclusivity bar and liability on the employer could be imposed in a civil action. 

The FMCSA commented, "....measuring an individual’s sleepiness today is not going to predict how sleepy the person will be 6 weeks from now. Several factors influence sleepiness, including prior sleep time, medications, and time of day, so it is a very difficult thing to assess."


Click here to read more about "pre-exisiitng conditions" and workers' compensation.

NJ Division of Workers Compensation Modifying CMS Process Policy

The NJ Division of Workers' Compensation is modifying its policy concerning Conditional Payments and Medicare Set-Aside issues. The Division has announced flexibility in settlement formats to allow the utilization of alternate language when approving dispositions.


Click here to read the complete Memorandum of July 11, 2012. 

Related articles

• The High Price of Drugs: Upscale Pricing By Doctors

  ---

• Social Media to Expand Your Workers' Compensation Practice: Jason Gelman To Speak At AAJ Convention

  ---

• Exclusivity Rule Adopted in MDL Aviation Law Case

  ---

OSHA cites Nebraska Cold Storage for 14 safety violations including ammonia exposure

Proposed fines total $132,800; company placed in Severe Violator Enforcement Program

Nebraska Cold Storage Inc. has been cited for 14 safety violations and fined $132,800 by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration for exposing workers to anhydrous ammonia at its Hastings facility. The company has been placed in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

"Ammonia is considered a high health hazard because it can be corrosive to the skin, eyes and lungs. It is flammable at varying concentrations," said Bonita Winingham, OSHA's area director in Omaha. "Businesses that handle hazardous materials must take precautions to protect workers from exposure to chemicals, explosions and fire hazards."

The March inspection was initially conducted under OSHA's high-hazard local emphasis program. It expanded to include all items within the agency's national emphasis program for process safety management for covered chemical facilities. The company provides basic storage and shipping services for the frozen, refrigerated and perishable food industries.

Four willful violations were cited. Some involve PSM violations, including the failure to develop and implement written, safe operating and mechanical integrity procedures and measures to take for physical contact or airborne exposure to anhydrous ammonia. The remaining violations involve failing to correct deficiencies in equipment and to document responses to 2010 compliance audit findings, including 12 of 22 deficient audit items that remained uncorrected. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for, or plain indifference to, employee safety and health.

A total of 10 serious safety violations include lack of emergency action planning; failing to maintain the original ammonia refrigeration systems process hazard analysis; exposing workers to crushing hazards by failing to remove and/or repair damaged storage racks; and failing to evaluate the performance of a powered industrial truck operator every three years. The other violations include failing to prevent electrocution from ice buildup encasing electrical junction boxes; operating equipment within 30 inches of a fork truck charging station; and install fixed wiring and provide strain relief for power cords. 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. The current citations may be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/Nebraska_Cold_Storage.pdf*

OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program 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.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and notice of proposed penalties to contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. If a company does not file or contest within that period, it must abate the cited conditions within the period ordered in the citations and pay the proposed penalties.

Related articles

• American Thoracic Society Welcomes OSHA's Proposed Lower Silica Exposure Standard (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Parents and Educators Can Keep Young Workers Safe (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Workplace Deaths Substantially Unreported (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• A Victory for Silica Dust Exposed Workers? (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Exclusivity Rule: Court Holds Risk of Death Contemplated by Legislature (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Injured Worker Sues Insurance Company for Malicious Prosecution

A workers' comp claimant has been allowed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to sue AIG for malicious prosecution as a result of the insurance companies fraud investigation. The workers' compensation insurance company conducted a fraud investigation of the injured worker and forwarded it onto the State agency for prosecution.

"In this proceeding we consider the appeal of AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. (AIGDC), from the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Jesse Maxwell, a workers' compensation claimant, brought suit against AIGDC regarding the company's conduct in referring his claim to the insurance fraud bureau (IFB), communicating with fraud investigators and prosecutors regarding his activity and claim, and using criminal processes to gain leverage in dealings with him. Maxwell sought recovery on theories of malicious prosecution, infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and violation of G.L. c. 93A and G.L. c. 176D. In July, 2007, AIGDC filed a special motion to dismiss the suit pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 59H, the so-called “anti-SLAPP” statute. That motion was denied and AIGDC's appeal was unsuccessful. See Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., 72 Mass.App.Ct. 685, 893 N.E.2d 791 (2008). On remand, the parties conducted discovery and AIGDC filed a motion for summary judgment in August, 2009. Summary judgment was denied. AIGDC appealed under the doctrine of present execution, and we granted its application for direct appellate review.

"We conclude that AIGDC enjoys qualified immunity regarding its reporting of potentially fraudulent activity but that summary judgment is inappropriate because all of Maxwell's claims rely, at least in part, on conduct falling outside the scope of the immunity. We also conclude that portions of Maxwell's claims may be barred by workers' compensation exclusivity under G.L. c. 152, but that not one of Maxwell's counts is barred entirely such that the Superior Court would be without subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Superior Court denying summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., Mass. , --- N.E.2d ----, 2011 WL 2556944 (Mass 2011) Decided June 30, 2011

For over 3 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

• Penalties, Paper and The Injured Worker (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• US Supreme Court Advances the Rights of Injured (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Zadroga 9-11 Compensation Fund Opens for Business (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• CDC Seeks to End NeedStick Injuries (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Blowing the Whistle on Unsafe Workplace Conditions Gets a Boost (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Just Published: 2014 Update - Gelman on Workers' Compensation Law

Jon Gelman’s newly revised and updated treatise on Workers’ Compensation Law has just been published by West Group of Egan, MN. The treatise is the most complete work available on NJ Workers’ Compensation law.

The work offers an in-depth and insightful analysis that provides a  quick and accurate guidance to those who practice workplace injury law. Time-saving comments and instructions shorten the claims process and expedite handling of issues.

New areas of the law reviewed:

The newly enacted SMART Act (The Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012), and the proposed Regulations, are discussed at length in this supplement. The newly enacted statutory provision concerning balance billing and expanded jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Court is reviewed. The launch of COURTS 4, the expanded workers’ compensation electronic filing system, implementing e-filing of Notice of Motions, is explained along with accompanying sample forms, codes, and instructions for filing/service. The statutory extension of lifetime benefits embodied in recent legislation for surviving spouses of police and fire department employees, who are fatally injured in-the-line of duty, is discussed. The recent case law concerning the second-prong of the “context test” involving the “Exclusivity Doctrine” is reviewed 

New 2014 Section Sections include:

--Dependency—Surviving spouse of police or fire department killed in the line of duty [12.14.50] 

--Case organization utilization reporting tracking system (COURTS)—Court proceeding type codes [25.22.30] 

--Case organization utilization reporting tracking system (COURTS)—E-filing of motions—General motion [25.22.40] 

Gelman on Workers’Compensation Law is exclusively integrated into the entire world-wide leading legal research network of West Group-Reuters-Thomson publications.

It is now available, in print, on CD-Rom and online via Westlaw™ and WestlawNext™. [Westlaw Database Identifier NJPRAC]

Click here now to order your copy.

Jon L. Gelman is nationally recognized as an author, lecturer and skilled trial attorney in the field of workers’ compensation law and occupational/environmental disease litigation. Over a career spanning more than three decades he has been involved in complex litigation involving thousands of clients challenging the mega-industries of: asbestos, tobacco and lead paint. Gelman is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). He is the former Vice-President of  The Workers Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG) and a charter member of The College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers. Jon is a founder of the Nancy R. Gelman Foundation Inc., which seeks to fund innovative research to cure breast cancer. He is also an avid photographer. jon@gelmans.com -www.gelmans.com

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.

Workers Compensation Law 2012 Now Shipping

Highlights Include:
Electronic Discovery s.22.33
Medicare Conditional Payments 29.32 and 29.33

Jon L. Gelman's 2012 supplement to the 3 volume hard bound practice series, Workers' Compensation Law 3rd Ed.,  has been published. Order these important supplements now. The supplement provide almost a quarter of a century continuing and unparalleled analysis on workers' compensation law. The volumes and supplements are integrated into the Westlaw(R), part of Thomson Reuters system for "Better Results Faster."

The newly enacted statutory changes to the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act and promulgated Rules permitting Emergent Medical Care Motions, new registration requirements for insurers, and new judicial enforcement powers of Judges of Compensation, including sanctions and contempt powers, are contained in this supplemental material.An analysis of the newly adopted procedures for the reimbursement of conditional payments established by Medicare and the protocols to co-ordinate  workers’ compensation claims with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is contained in this supplement. The materials also provide the authorizations required to obtain conditional payment  information from the Coordinator of Benefits. Debt collection referral to the Department of the Treasury is also reviewed.

The new Community and Worker Right to  Know material has been incorporated into this supplement. The current hazardous substance lists and the substances that have been deemed extremely dangerous are provided.The supplement reviews new case law concerning electronic cancellation of coverage as well as the standard for claims to be considered casually related to the employment.The mandatory reporting requirements of the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 are described as well as the appeal procedure under the reimbursement provision of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.These pocket parts provide information concerning the requirements for medical monitoring in workers’ compensation claims. It discusses. the Asbestos Fund, which has been established for those entities where workers’ compensation coverage cannot be established.  

The newly designed forms that need to be utilized in filing for benefits are included.  Also, the recently modified Motion for Temporary and Medical Benefits, including a form Certification, is provided and discussed.The newly revised Judgments for Total and Permanent Disability are provided in this pocket part.  The Judgments include new refinements in offsets for pensions and Social Security disability benefits. Reviewed also is the “intentional wrong exception” to the Exclusivity Bar which has been the subject of new workers’ compensation insurance policy language and regulation.The recently promulgated administrative rules governing the disposition of Temporary Disability Benefits are discussed. The non-duplication of benefits provisions are reviewed including the multiple agency adjudication process.

An expansion of benefits available to Federal public safety officers is reviewed in this supplement.Collateral medical benefit issues are discussed in light of the recent Supreme Court decision concerning this matter.  The pocket parts include a Motion to Join the Collateral Health Carrier and provide sample Certifications to be used in support of the application.Additionally, these pocket parts provide information concerning the new rules of the Division of Workers’ Compensation embodying electronic filing requirements and new procedures involving both formal and informal proceedings, motion practice, post judgment process, and judicial performance. The expanded Medicare secondary reporting requirements and the mandatory coordination of benefits are reviewed in this supplement.

The recovery aspects of Medicare conditional payments as well as future medical provisions are updated and discussed. The new Child Support Lien distribution forms, computation worksheets and judgments are provided and explained in depth. The NJ Supreme’ Court ruling and the legislative enactments are discussed concerning same sex couples and the availability of workers’ compensation benefits.This supplement reviews the newly promulgated Rules concerning the Uninsured Employers’ Fund and audio and video coverage of workers’ compensation proceedings.  The horrific tragedy of September 11^th, 2001 and the impact it has upon the Workers’ Compensation system is discussed.

This supplement reviews the newly enacted Smallpox Emergency Protection Act as well as recent court decisions concerning acts of terrorism.

The subsequent legislative changes enacted in response to potential terrorist threats are reviewed, including the Public Safety Officers’ Benefit Act as well as the liberalized legislative enactments involving rescue workers and medical personnel. The impact of the newly promulgated Federal rules and regulations concerning medical record privacy and compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) medical authorization requirements are reviewed in this supplement and model forms are furnished.  The recently enacted statutory workers’ compensation coverage options available to proprietors and partners are discussed. The supplement reviews the recent court decisions expanding the responsibility of the Second Injury Fund for pre-existing medical conditions in cases in which latent diseases become manifest during retirement.  The statutory enactments concerning State Temporary Disability Benefits are reviewed.  


The recently amended Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act is explained in detail and forms are furnished and discussed.The recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the high judicial threshold for evaluation of scientific evidence are analyzed. The requirements for proof of scientific evidence in complex workers’ compensation cases are discussed including the admissibility of testimony from non-physicians experts. Furthermore, the evolving and expanding issues concerning medical monitoring are reviewed.This pocket part also discusses recent changes in the application for counsel fees.

The supplement includes the newly promulgated administrative directive embodying those changes. 

Click here to Order Now: 
http://west.thomson.com/productdetail/722/17152728/productdetail.aspx 

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.

Insurance Company Liable in Tort for Delay of Medical Treatment

A US District Court Judge held that a valid cause of action existed directly against an insurance company for the delay treatment to an injured worker. The court, in denying a motion for summary judgment, held that when an insurer negligently ignored the advice of its own medical expert concerning medical treatment, a claim against the insurer itself was not barred by the Exclusivity Doctrine.


Davis v One Beacon, et al., 2010 WL 2629053 (D.N.J.) Civil Action No. 09-cv-4179 (NLH)(KMW) Decided June 28, 2010.


Click here for more information on how Jon L Gelman can assist you in a claim for workers' Compensation claim benefits. You may e-mail Jon  Gelman or call 1-973-696-7900.