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 of intentional wrong.
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 the from the 3rd Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the insured city and the insurer controlled the allocation of funds recovered from a … 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 potion 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
New Jersey Transit paid out a workers’ comp claim to one of its employees who was rear-ended by the defendant. New Jersey 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 … Read more
In a fact-sensitive workers compensation matter, the workers comp judge was concerned that the petitioner would perjure himself if he testified, so the judge continued the matter. In the interim, motions were filed such that at the next hearing, without giving the petitioner a chance to testify, the judge dismissed the case without prejudice. Neither … Read more