In Dobransky v. EQT Production, the Superior Court ruled that a person who merely drives a truck to deliver a single raw material to a well site is not a person whose work consists of “the removal, excavation, or drilling of soil, rock, or minerals” within Section 302(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
In Hocutt v. Manda Supply Co., the Appellate Division affirmed an order granting summary judgment. Because the plaintiff was a “special employee,” the exclusive remedy for his workplace injury was workers’ compensation. Moreover, the defendant’s alleged conduct was not excepted from workers’ compensation because the conduct was not sufficiently egregious to rise to the level … Read more
In Asbury Park v. Star Ins. Co., a firefighter was justly compensated for his work-related injuries, but the workers’ comp payout caused a fight between Asbury Park and its insurance carrier. In this certified question from the 3rd Circuit, the NJ Supreme Court held that the contract between the insured city and the insurer controlled … Read more
While the instant action was proceeding on direct appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017) that a certain portion of workers’ compensation benefits statutory law was unconstitutional. The claimant in the instant matter properly raised and preserved the same issue for his case and now … Read more
NJ Transit paid out a workers’ comp claim to one of its employees who was rear-ended. NJ Transit then sought to recoup the benefits from the at-fault driver’s employer, as the at-fault driver had been working, as well. The trial court, however, held that New Jersey’s no-fault insurance scheme under the Auto Insurance Cost Recovery … Read more