Publications
Defeating the exclusive remedy provision of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act requires a high burden of proof.
The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment based on the Workers’ Compensation Act’s “exclusivity provision,” N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, which provides, in relevant part, that, “[i]f any injury ...
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
Workers’ compensation insurance carrier’s lien pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 attaches even if the injured worker’s third-party recovery was for pain and suffering only.
The plaintiff’s employer’s workers’ compensation carrier notified her that it was asserting a lien under Section 40 of the Act, N.J.S.A.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
An interlocutory order striking a joinder petition is final and appealable; however, identifying the order as interlocutory may allow the filing of an appeal nunc pro tunc.
Because the employer was uninsured, the claimant filed a claim petition against the Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (Fund), which then filed a joinder petition against an insurance company, alleging they were the insurer at the time of injury.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
No entitlement to percentage fee of medical bills when Workers’ Compensation Judge properly performs a quantum meruit analysis in connection with the attorney’s request for a fee.
The employer agreed to accept the claimant’s injury via a stipulation in which claimant’s counsel was entitled to 20% of the indemnity benefits received by the claimant as a fee.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
Testimony given by the insurer’s repricing manager regarding the use of a database to determine the usual and customary charges for trauma care was not substantial evidence to support use of the database.
The Commonwealth Court concluded that the testimony of the insurer’s witness, the repricing manager, had no application to the payment for charges exempt from the fee caps.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
You cannot later file a petition to review to recover litigation costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the successful dismissal of a prior suspension petition.
In its suspension petition, the employer alleged the claimant refused reasonable medical treatment.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
Misinterpretation of §108(r) in establishing occupational disease. Claimant did not prove that workplace exposure to Group I carcinogens caused his malignant melanoma cancer.
The Commonwealth Court said that it was incumbent upon the claimant, a firefighter, to prove that his malignant melanoma was a type of cancer caused by the Group I carcinogens to which he was exposed in the workplace in order to establish an occup
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
Legal Update for Medicare Set-Aside
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Requires a Liability Insurance Carrier to Pay TWICE After It Grants a Medicare Advantage Plan a Cause of Action
The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.
Mode of operation instruction not proper for a slip and fall on a berry in New Jersey retail clothing store. Summary judgment granted.
Although the courts have found open bags of berries to be part of the self-service in grocery stores—which would permit the mode of operation charge to negate the plaintiff having to prove the element of notice—a berry in a retail clot
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2016
Mode of operation instruction not proper for spill at casino, but summary judgment denied.
The plaintiff’s slip and fall on liquid on the concourse area in a casino was due to a patron’s spilling a beverage. Video showed the fall occurring four minutes after the spill.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2016