The New Jersey Appellate Division, in State v. Lacey, ruled that the protections afforded by a civil reservation as part of a criminal or municipal guilty plea are limited to those civil actions where the plaintiff seeks to recover money damages. It does not apply to other collateral, civil actions where, for example, the State or other governmental entity is the plaintiff.
This case is of particular importance in criminal cases in both the municipal and Superior Courts.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
New Jersey Federal Court finds Bad Faith Claim against Workers' Compensation carrier is not barred by exclusive remedy provision
Davis v. OneBeacon Insurance Group, 09-cv-4179, (D.N.J. June 28, 2010).
In this case the petitioner injured his left shoulder while working. He filed a
claim petition in the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The WC carrier, defendant in the civil law suit, authorized a treating physician. The authorized physician recommended surgery. The WC carrier refused to authorize the surgery. Petitioner repeatedly requested approval for the surgery, but the
carrier refused. Petitioner filed a Motion for Medical and Temporary Disability
Benefits on September 20, 2006. On April 18, 2007, the Honorable Robert
Butler, JWC, found that the WC carrier was obligated to approve the surgery and
that its refusal to approve the surgery violated Section 15 of the New Jersey
Workers’ Compensation Act. The judge assessed a 25% penalty under
N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.1 and awarded counsel fees and costs. The court described the conduct of the carrier as “unconscionable.”The judge went on to admonish the carrier:
The additional and prolonged pain and obvious mental anguish of
the Petitioner that has been caused by the appalling and
unconscionable conduct of OneBeacon are neither cognizable nor
compensable based upon the provisions of the Workers’
Compensation Act. Only the nature and extent of the Petitioner’s
permanent disability following his recuperation from surgery is
compensable in this court.
As regrettable as that may be, the Petitioner is not left without a
possible source of redress against OneBeacon for his pain and
suffering. The Court suggests that Petitioner’s counsel direct his
attention to the case of Rothfuss versus Bakers Mutual Insurance
Company of New York, 107 N.J. Super. 189, 257 A.2d 733 (1969).
Thereafter petitioner filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey on April
13, 2009, alleging that the carriers refusal to authorize necessary medical
treatment caused him injuries that are not recoverable in workers’
compensation, including pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional
distress. The carrier moved to dismiss the law suit and argued, in part, that
the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the New Jersey
Workers’ Compensation Act and by the statute of limitations.
The Federal court went on to deny the the carriers motion to dismiss and the case has survived.
In this case the petitioner injured his left shoulder while working. He filed a
claim petition in the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The WC carrier, defendant in the civil law suit, authorized a treating physician. The authorized physician recommended surgery. The WC carrier refused to authorize the surgery. Petitioner repeatedly requested approval for the surgery, but the
carrier refused. Petitioner filed a Motion for Medical and Temporary Disability
Benefits on September 20, 2006. On April 18, 2007, the Honorable Robert
Butler, JWC, found that the WC carrier was obligated to approve the surgery and
that its refusal to approve the surgery violated Section 15 of the New Jersey
Workers’ Compensation Act. The judge assessed a 25% penalty under
N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.1 and awarded counsel fees and costs. The court described the conduct of the carrier as “unconscionable.”The judge went on to admonish the carrier:
The additional and prolonged pain and obvious mental anguish of
the Petitioner that has been caused by the appalling and
unconscionable conduct of OneBeacon are neither cognizable nor
compensable based upon the provisions of the Workers’
Compensation Act. Only the nature and extent of the Petitioner’s
permanent disability following his recuperation from surgery is
compensable in this court.
As regrettable as that may be, the Petitioner is not left without a
possible source of redress against OneBeacon for his pain and
suffering. The Court suggests that Petitioner’s counsel direct his
attention to the case of Rothfuss versus Bakers Mutual Insurance
Company of New York, 107 N.J. Super. 189, 257 A.2d 733 (1969).
Thereafter petitioner filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey on April
13, 2009, alleging that the carriers refusal to authorize necessary medical
treatment caused him injuries that are not recoverable in workers’
compensation, including pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional
distress. The carrier moved to dismiss the law suit and argued, in part, that
the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the New Jersey
Workers’ Compensation Act and by the statute of limitations.
The Federal court went on to deny the the carriers motion to dismiss and the case has survived.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Silvi, Fedele & Honschke Attorneys At Law, launches TOMS RIVER LAW BLOG
The attorneys of Silvi, Fedele & Honschke have launched the TOMS RIVER LAW BLOG. We intend to provide posts of interest to our clients and community. Silvi, Fedele & Honschke is a full service law firm providing services to clients throughout New Jersey. We concentrate in the areas of: Personal Injury, Workers Compensation, Real Estate, Municipal Court, Criminal, Tax Appeals, Social Security, Landlord/Tenant, Commerical Litigation, Wills & Estates, and Divorve & Family Law. We have offices in Toms River, Lacey Township (Forked River) and Bricktown. Come visit us http://www.sfhlaw.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)