An Employer Is Responsible To Compensate For Pain

A NJ Appellate Court, in a dramatic reversal of a compensation judge's dismissal of a case, held that "an employer is responsible to compensate" an injured worker for pain.  The reviewing court held that, "...the judge misapplied some standards bearing upon this case."

The trial judge's conduct, in baring the treating physician from testifying, was also cited as "a discretionary lapse." The trial judge's ruling was reversed and the case remanded for a hearing.

The case involved a long standing injury that required prolonged treatment for a chronic medical condition. The injury occurred in June of 1989 and was the subject of an Order Approving Settlement in January 2004 for 20% of partial total. That award was entered by another trial judge.

Even thought an Order had been entered by the prior trial judge for continued medical treatment and medication, the insurance company unilaterally terminated provision of those benefits without a court order. The claimant's attorney, George Goceljak, was required to file two motions for continued medical treatment and medication benefits. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution and then subsequently restored the matter for trial and then marked it "not moved" when a minimal one-cycle (3 week) adjournment was requested. Customarily, NJ workers' compensation cases are tried in piecemeal, every 3 to 6 weeks.

The trial judge then mandated that the trial should begin immediately on January 15, 2010, commenting that she was, "...not going to wait" any longer for the the claimant to proceed with his case. She denied a reconsideration of the application of the injured worker to allow the treating physician to testify, and then proceeded in a 5 month stagnated trial ultimately dismissing the case.

The NJ Appellate Division found, "the judge erred is using, out of its context, the simple thought that 'an employer is not required to compensate and employee for pain,' as a basis for denying this petitioner's application. The larger principle...is that, to the extent that a petitioner experiences continuing pain as a result of his work-connected injury, the employer for whom he worked at the time of the injury remains responsible.'"

Noto v. Staples, Inc.,  Docket No. A-0237-10T1, 2011 WL 3273921 (NJ App. Div. 2011) Decided August 2, 2010 

Related articles

• Bad Faith Claims Maybe Going To The Jury (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Employers Face Liability For Cell Phone Accidents (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Florida Rules Illegal Aliens Entitled to Workers Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Employers Prohibited From Seeking Reimbursement From a Public Entity (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Employers Risks Increase From Cell Phone Use (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Court Orders Workers' Compensation Insurance Carrier to Comply With OSHA Subpoena (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Deal or No Deal: Judge Relies on Court Appointed Physician

An Appellate Court has rule that a Judge of Compensation can select an independent physician to review the need for medical treatment. It doesn't matter whether or not the parties agreed formally or informally as to the binding effect of the physician's opinion as to causal relationship and the need for treatment.


The Court has discretion to merely rely upon the physician's opinion and reach a reach a decision based upon the report. The cost  of the evaluation is to be paid for by the employer /insurance carrier. Furthermore, the Court need not hold a hearing for oral argument on the issue and can reach a binding on the papers alone.


Thompson v. Quality Et al., 2011 WL 3107767, Docket No. A-1177-10T1 (NJ App. Div.) decided July 27, 2011.

Related articles

• Top 10 Surgery Center Violations (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Federal Court Enjoins CMS From MSP Recovery Procedures (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Injured Worker Sues Insurance Company for Malicious Prosecution (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Ignoring The Doctor Orders is OK in Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

NJ Denies an Occupational Workers Compensation For Last Exposure Applying Apportionment Rule

A NJ Appellate Court denied an employee workers' compensation benefits by applying an apportionment rule as well as the manifestation of disease doctrine. The employee worked in two states and spend more than 10 times of his working career in Pennsylvania working n a similar job during which time manifestation occurred.


"We do not suggest that there is a mandatory mathematical formula that judges of compensation should apply in calculating the employment exposure of a petitioner as part of Williams's jurisdictional test. Although we might quibble with Judge LaBoy's description of petitioner's exposure as "de minimis," we nevertheless conclude that the sixteen-month exposure was not sufficiently substantial under the totality of the circumstances to constitute injury-conferring jurisdiction in the Division."


McGlinsey v George H. Buchanan Company, Not Reported in A.3d, 2010 WL 3932983 (N.J.Super.A.D.) Decided September 30, 2010

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.