Extraterritorial occupational disease claim with disputed jurisdiction
Monday, December 06, 2010 Filed in: New
Jersey|
Workers
Compensation| Jurisdiction|
Appellate
Practice
Claimant Gerard McGlinsey worked from 1974 to 2001 as
a press operator in Pennsylvania. In 1999 he
complained to his employer about physical problems he
was having, related to the job. The employer told him
to file a workers' compensation claim (in
Pennsylvania) and pursue treatment. The claimant
didn't file anything and kept working as a pressman.
The claimant then worked from 2001-2002 as a pressman in New Jersey, essentially performing the same job. Following this employment, the claimant brought an occupational claim for workers' compensation benefits in New Jersey. The employer filed a motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction - stating that the claim should have been brought in Pennsylvania (the claimant called this motion a 'stealth' motion for summary judgment).
During the trial it was established that most of the claimant's work experience was in Pennsylvania, and that only 5% of his work life occurred in New Jersey.
Which state has jurisdiction, Pennsylvania or New Jersey?
The New Jersey Appellate Division just affirmed the decision of New Jersey Workers' Compensation Judge Jose LaBoy.
The claimant then worked from 2001-2002 as a pressman in New Jersey, essentially performing the same job. Following this employment, the claimant brought an occupational claim for workers' compensation benefits in New Jersey. The employer filed a motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction - stating that the claim should have been brought in Pennsylvania (the claimant called this motion a 'stealth' motion for summary judgment).
During the trial it was established that most of the claimant's work experience was in Pennsylvania, and that only 5% of his work life occurred in New Jersey.
Which state has jurisdiction, Pennsylvania or New Jersey?
The New Jersey Appellate Division just affirmed the decision of New Jersey Workers' Compensation Judge Jose LaBoy.
Under the relevant case law (Williams v. Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey) in an extraterritorial
occupational disease case in order to secure
jurisdiction of the New Jersey Workers'
Compensation Court the claimant must show
Under these tests, the New Jersey workers' compensation judge found that the New Jersey work experience of the claimant was 'de minimis.' The Judge noted that the claimant was well-aware of his conditions and the possibility that those physical conditions were related to his work. The Judge found that the record was barren of medical evidence of 'actual aggravation' of the underlying conditions. Finally, he claimant's doctor (Dr. Ralph Cataldo) issued an opinion that the Judge of Compensation ruled was merely a 'net opinion' and without basis in fact.
Case: Gerard McGlinsey v. George B. Buchanan Company, A-4653-08T3 (N.J. App. Div. Decided Sept. 30, 2010). Unreported.
- (1) period of substantial work exposure in New Jersey in consideration of the totality of the circumstances and given the nature of the injury;
- (2) if the exposure was not substantial then the materials to which the claimant were exposed must be highly toxic; or
- (3) the alleged occupational condition o disease must have been disclose door made obvious while working in New Jersey.
Under these tests, the New Jersey workers' compensation judge found that the New Jersey work experience of the claimant was 'de minimis.' The Judge noted that the claimant was well-aware of his conditions and the possibility that those physical conditions were related to his work. The Judge found that the record was barren of medical evidence of 'actual aggravation' of the underlying conditions. Finally, he claimant's doctor (Dr. Ralph Cataldo) issued an opinion that the Judge of Compensation ruled was merely a 'net opinion' and without basis in fact.
Case: Gerard McGlinsey v. George B. Buchanan Company, A-4653-08T3 (N.J. App. Div. Decided Sept. 30, 2010). Unreported.
