Injury sustained by the claimant on his way to take a cigarette break and get a sandwich was compensable under the “personal comfort” doctrine.

The claimant, who was the recipient of Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits due to a mental health condition, worked in a part-time capacity for an employer that found jobs for individuals on SSD seeking supplemental income. What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers.

While the Workers’ Compensation Act is to be construed liberally, coverage cannot be found if there is a clear disregard of the statutory requirement.

The Appellate Division reversed the workers’ compensation court’s orders denying E.W. Millwork’s motion to dismiss and for reconsideration. On August 27, 2003, the petitioner was injured while working for E.W. Millwork. What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers.

New Jersey Supreme Court finds that the petitioner was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits in applying the premises rule.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision which had found the petitioner’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of employment. What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers.

Calculation of average weekly wage not always limited to money paid in 13-week period prior to work accident, but can include monies (bonus) earned during that period but is not received until later date outside that period.

The claimant worked as an executive assistant for the City of Aventura. After sustaining a compensable work accident on February 27, 2020, she continued to work and received an annual merit bonus on August 6, 2020. What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers.

DEFENSE PREVAILS IN JURY TRIAL ON UNDERINSURED MOTORIST CLAIM

We prevailed in a jury trial on a UM claim in Hillsborough County’s 13th Judicial Circuit. The plaintiff claimed he suffered permanent and debilitating injuries in a rear-end collision in Tampa, Florida. Liability was admitted, but the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries was in dispute. The plaintiff asked the jury to award him $500,000 for past and future damages.  The jury found there was no permanent injury and awarded $25,000 for past medical expenses only.

Judge agrees that claimant was not on a “special mission.”

We defended a claim petition and penalty petition wherein the claimant alleged serious neck and back injuries as a result of a work-related motor vehicle accident. We convinced the judge that the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury and, therefore, his claim was barred. The judge noted that, based on claimant’s testimony on cross examination, he had a legal address in North Carolina but was allegedly leasing an apartment in Newtown Square, Pa. He alleged he was on a special mission on the date of injury, traveling to an office owned by the employer.

Judge doesn’t buy that chemical exposure was major contributing cause for claimant’s complaints.

We won a total controvert on a workers’ compensation exposure claim and successfully defended a denial. The claimant alleged exposure to a toxic airplane paint thinner at a plant in Kentucky in December of 2019. He was a subcontractor of the airplane manufacturer, but a Florida employee. The claimant complained of breathing issues and skin rashes. He sought treatment at an emergency room in Kentucky on the date of alleged exposure ,and again approximately 10 months later for skin rashes. However, the claimant was able to continue working without any wage loss the entire time.

Dismissal of claims against a Pennsylvania city and a police officer.

In this civil rights litigation, we obtained summary judgment and the dismissal of all claims against a Pennsylvania City and one of its police officers. The court found that the traffic stop of the plaintiff was proper and did not violate his constitutional rights. The plaintiff filed a federal civil rights action against the police officer and the City, alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because of unlawful search and seizure as well as a malicious prosecution.

Plaintiff’s petition defeated in high stakes legal malpractice case.

We defeated a plaintiff’s petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court in a tortious interference and defamation action against an attorney for a lender bank. The New Jersey Appellate Division had affirmed a trial court decision granting summary judgment in a $10 million tortious interference and defamation case filed by borrowers against the attorneys for a lender bank. This case arose out of an underlying deficiency and foreclosure action filed by a bank due to the plaintiff’s failure to repay a multi-million dollar loan used to finance the purchase of real estate.