The Division of Workers’ Compensation and the Superior Court share concurrent jurisdiction to determine employment status in the context of an exclusivity defense.

The defendant was an elderly man living alone, and his daughter sought someone who could move into her father’s home, cook his meals and assist him in his daily activities. The decedent was referred to the defendant by a mutual friend. The parties agreed that the decedent would move into the defendant’s home and work seven days per week for $100 a day, which she would receive in cash. The decedent was responsible for preparing three meals a day, doing the laundry, performing light housekeeping, and accompanying the defendant on errands and to go out to eat. The parties met on October 21, 2008, and the decedent began her duties immediately thereafter.

On December 8, 2008, the defendant and the decedent were running errands when they stopped at a restaurant for lunch. Upon arriving, the decedent exited the vehicle and stood on the sidewalk while the defendant parked the car. The defendant suddenly accelerated his vehicle, which jumped the curb onto the sidewalk, striking the decedent and pinning her against a wall. The decedent’s left leg was severed below the knee, resulting in her death less than an hour later.

The decedent’s estate filed a wrongful death action against the defendant in Superior Court. The defendant answered, asserting an affirmative defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the decedent was his employee and that exclusive jurisdiction was with the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The defendant also filed a motion to transfer the case to the Division. The judge denied the decedent’s motion as there was no claim pending in the Division and the limitations period had expired. The defendant moved for reconsideration, having obtained a certification from his homeowner’s insurance carrier conceding compensability of the decedent’s accident and agreeing not to raise a limitations defense were the matter to be transferred to the Division. The court again denied the decedent’s motion.

At trial, the jury determined that the decedent was an independent contractor and awarded her estate damages for both pain and suffering and wrongful death. This appeal ensued.

In reversing and remanding to the Division for a determination of the decedent’s employment status, the Appellate Division relied on Kristiansen v. Morgan, 153 N.J. 298 (1998), in which the court held:

[A]lthough the Superior Court and the Division have concurrent jurisdiction to decide an exclusivity defense, primary jurisdiction is in the Division because it can decide all aspects of the controversy in a manner binding on all the interested parties.

The Kristiansen court found that, regardless of whether the employer admits or denies the compensability of an accident, the Division was the forum best suited to decide whether the accident falls within the coverage of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment on liability only and remanded the matter to the Division for a determination of the decedent’s employment status. The Division was instructed to thereafter transfer the matter to the Law Division, which shall, in accordance with the Division’s determination, either reinstate the judgment in favor of the decedent’s estate or dismiss the matter with prejudice.

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2014