Reading Room

An employee fell from a narrow, eighteen-foot-high scaffold in the course of assembling a sheet metal roof. Even though there was evidence admitted at the trial that he had consumed a gallon and a half of hard alcohol, drank two beers that day, and had a grossly elevated blood alcohol level of .29%, the accident was held compensable. 

The State of New Jersey recently adopted new Administrative Rules which appear to be the most sweeping reform of the NJ Workers' Compensation system in the last 17 tears. The rules address substantive and procedural aspects that may result in a detrimental effect upon the rights of many litigants. The Rules were adopted on March 3, 1997 with the support of business and the insurance company lobbying teams.

The 1996 court term set forth standards for occupational disease claims, defined defenses available, provided interpretation regarding third-party liens, further defined standards to be utilized in the presentation of evidence, and set forth parameters concerning the nature and extent of disability under the Workers' Compensation Act. 

In a decision that could open the doors to lawsuits by employees harmed by exposure to secondhand smoke or other indirect hazards in the workplace, an appeals court Tuesday upheld benefits for a West Milford custodian who died of cancer after exposure to asbestos in a school.In a decision that could open the doors to lawsuits by employees harmed by exposure to secondhand smoke or other indirect hazards in the workplace, an appeals court Tuesday upheld benefits for a West Milford custodian who died of cancer after exposure to asbestos in a school.  

In several landmark cases the New Jersey Supreme Court redefined the parameters of the Workers' Compensation Act as it applies to occupational illness, scientific evidence, the standard of proof to determine permanency, apportionment of responsibility, exclusivity of remedy and off-premises liability. These areas of the law are also the focus of various New Jersey Appellate Division case decisions as well as several federal court rulings. Some of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court were the most significant rulings in the history of workers' compensation case law. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a landmark decision that was a year in the making, has taken a big step toward dismantling the exclusivity doctrine of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which immunizes employers from tort liability. The 3-2 decision last Wednesday came in the case of a laborer for a nonunion shop who died when he was run over by a dump truck driven by a worker from a union shop owned by the same principals. The justices said the laborer’s widow can sue the shop that loaned the truck driver even though he is immunized from suit. 

During the 1993-1994 court term, the attention of the New Jersey Supreme Court was on evidential issues, while the Appellate Division addressed an entire spectrum of issues arising before the Division of Workers' Compensation. Those issues included conflict of law questions, further definition of the coming and going rule, and apportionment of traumatic and occupational disease claims [as well as issues of credibility. The court also addressed such perennially important issues as dependency benefits, the "fellow servant" rule, casual employment, and psychiatric illness]. The court term marked further reiteration by the reviewing tribunals that permanent disability can be recognized at minimal levels and that a cause of action exists for an occupationally-induced cardiovascular condition.

The 1992-93 court term produced a group of decisions that focused on novel issues now being presented before the Division of Workers' Compensation. Judicial forums had an opportunity to review many aspects of the law, including employment status, psychiatric disability, apportionment of disability in traumatic disease claims among multiple respondents, [the "safety net," the "coming and going rule," liens, the scope of spousal dependency, evidential concerns,] and the scope of the availability of a pension offset for employees of interstate agencies. 

NJ court decides issues concerning the coming and going rule, mental stress, and the exclusivity bar of the Workers' Compensation Act.

Sometimes an employee may be permitted to sue an employer for negligence or for intentional harm.

Families of asbestos workers who have direct asbestos exposure have been implicated in various diseases, including mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis.