A recent New Jersey Appellate Court decision entitled Collette v. South Jersey Transportation Authority, A-1175-09T2 (App.Div. September 7, 2010) dealt with the 26 Week Rule of the Workers' Compensation Statute.
In many claims the employer invokes the 26-week rule, which states that compensation for permanent disability, total or partial, shall not be determined or awarded until after 26
weeks from the date of the employee's final active medical treatment, or until after 26
weeks from the date of the employee's return to work, whichever is earlier.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Global Real Estate Trends to Watch for the Near- to Mid-Term
- A bottom will be reached eventually in virtually all markets. Business will pick up gradually. Assuming that the global recovery truly gets underway, home sales may rebound reasonably well by 2011 or 2012. However, many owners of homes and commercial properties will remain in a difficult position as their properties have a current value of less than what the owners paid, and many mortgage debts are at higher levels than what the underlying properties are worth.
- Many major development projects are downsized, delayed or canceled.
- The commercial property investment sector remains slow. Vacancies remain high, particularly in retail shopping centers and many office markets.
- Commercial mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures will continue to be a big problem, and funding for speculative commercial projects remains extremely difficult to obtain. U.S. banks held $1.8 trillion in commercial property loans on their books as of early 2008, and write offs on those loans are projected to run as high as 12%, or more than $200 billion, by the end of 2010.
- On the corporate level, the trend will be towards consolidation of development and construction firms, particularly as stronger firms acquire weaker rivals. Cost control, debt reduction and risk management will be a core focus. Healthy development companies will acquire important tracts of land at bargain prices for future use. (In early 2009, Pulte agreed to acquire competitor Centex for $1.3 billion.)
- National government investments in transportation infrastructure such as highways, education facilities, government offices and health care facilities will offer opportunities to commercial construction firms. A large portion of national government “stimulus” construction spending will be funneled to state and local projects.
Source: Plunkett Research, Ltd.
Worker Entitled To Sue His Employer For Inentional Harm
Van Dunk v. Rickson Associates Realty Corporation
Generally, a worker is barred by the New Jersey Workers Compensation statute from suing their employer. In this case, the Appellate Division found that the company intentionally disregarded plaintiff’s safety in an effort to “increase defendant’s profit
and productivity.” It said, “The fact that plaintiff’s safety was sacrificed for
defendant’s benefit is reinforced by the events following his accident. After OSHA
had finished its investigation, defendant was able to relocate the sump by using
the trench box it had on site without harm to any of its employees.” While the court
did not find deception by the defendant or removal of a safety device, it felt that
the actions of the defendant were akin to deliberately exposing plaintiff to a known
hazard. The court further commented that this sort of injury is not a fact of
industrial life (the “context” prong of the Millison test) and that there were simple
safety devices that could have been used to prevent this injury.
Generally, a worker is barred by the New Jersey Workers Compensation statute from suing their employer. In this case, the Appellate Division found that the company intentionally disregarded plaintiff’s safety in an effort to “increase defendant’s profit
and productivity.” It said, “The fact that plaintiff’s safety was sacrificed for
defendant’s benefit is reinforced by the events following his accident. After OSHA
had finished its investigation, defendant was able to relocate the sump by using
the trench box it had on site without harm to any of its employees.” While the court
did not find deception by the defendant or removal of a safety device, it felt that
the actions of the defendant were akin to deliberately exposing plaintiff to a known
hazard. The court further commented that this sort of injury is not a fact of
industrial life (the “context” prong of the Millison test) and that there were simple
safety devices that could have been used to prevent this injury.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
At Home Fall Caused By WC Injury Ruled Also Compensable
Romanovsky v. River Edge Transportation Company - by the Honorable Philip Bolstein, J.W.C. - New Jersey Workers' Compensation Court
Petitioner suffered a compensable injury to his lower back. Thereafter he fell and injured his wrist at home, alleging the fall at home was due to his lower back injury. The workers’ compensation judge held that petitioner’s wrist injury was also compensable as causally related to the work disability. The judge also found respondent unreasonably delayed in paying temporary benefits and penalized respondent pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.1.
Petitioner suffered a compensable injury to his lower back. Thereafter he fell and injured his wrist at home, alleging the fall at home was due to his lower back injury. The workers’ compensation judge held that petitioner’s wrist injury was also compensable as causally related to the work disability. The judge also found respondent unreasonably delayed in paying temporary benefits and penalized respondent pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.1.
DO I HAVE THE RIGHT CAR INSURANCE?
On an almost daily basis I am asked by clients:
DO I HAVE THE RIGHT CAR INSURANCE?
UNFORTUNATELY, by the time someone asks this question it is already too late. Usually, tHIS question comes up AFTER an accident occurs and the victim is stuck with the insurance choices they have already made. The purpose of this letter is to give our clients some idea of what the choices are BEFORE you are involved in an accident. To best explain your choices it is necessary to understand what car insurance is and how it works.
In 1972, New Jersey passed laws that require car owners to purchase insurance that includes bodily injury and property damage liability coverage to protect the owner/insured for claims against them; uninsured motorist coverage to protect the owner/insured if they are injured in an accident with an uninsured driver; and personal injury protection coverage to pay for accident related medical expenses, loss of income or loss of essential services.
The reason for this required insurance is to provide prompt compensation to people injured in car accidents and to provide financial security to cover those claims. This law allows you, as a car owner, to buy insurance that protects your own financial assets if you injure someone in a car accident. In addition you can buy insurance that will provide coverage to you, family members who reside with you and to occupants of your car if they are injured in an accident caused an uninsured or under insured driver.
A “standard” policy must provide liability and uninsured motorist coverage with minimum limits of $15,000 per injured person with a total of $30,000 per accident. This is the MINIMUM amount of coverage. Oftentimes your insurance agent will tell you that this MINIMUM coverage combined with collision insurance provides you with “FULL” coverage. That is incorrect. This coverage only protects you up to $15,000 per injured person and $30,000 TOTAL no matter how many people are injured. As an extreme example imagine you are responsible for an accident with a minivan containing seven passengers, all of whom are injured. This “FULL” coverage will only provide you with liability insurance of $30,000 for all seven injured people, after that you are on your own. If it is your family of seven in the mini van and you are all injured by an uninsured driver your insurance company will only provide $30,000 in coverage to be divided amongst the seven injured family members.
Most people are unaware that you have the option to buy additional uninsured coverage up to $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident split limits or $500,000 single limit. The sole requirement is that you must also increase your liability coverage to the same amounts. Your insurance agent often does not suggest you increase your coverage to better protect yourself and your family for one simple reason, their profit is in writing the initial policy. Premium increases for more coverage are relatively minor compared to the initial cost of the policy and do not make up for the greater financial exposure to the insurance company should serious injury occur.
When asked, I recommend that, in a perfect world, you purchase car insurance with liability and uninsured/under insured coverage of $500,000. In addition, you should purchase a personal catastrophe umbrella with liability limits of $1,000,000. Some insurance companies offer an umbrella with uninsured/under insured motorist coverage of $1,000,000. Although this increase will raise your premiums, I think, after the initial “sticker shock” of the standard policy, you will be surprised to learn it will be less than you had feared.
In addition, standard policies provide Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits with medical expenses up to $250,000 and a deductible of $250.00. The law allows you to reduce the amount of medical expense coverage as low as $15,000 and to increase the deductible to as high as $2,500.00. If you figure it out, the $15,000 of coverage with a $2,500 deductible only provides you with $12,500 worth of coverage if you have a severe injury. Worse if your injury is not severe and you have relatively typical medical treatment (under $2,500) your car insurance provides you with NO coverage. This option is a trick it saves you very little but reduces the insurance companies responsibility from $250,000 to $12,500. The small amount of savings on your premium does not justify the tremendous loss in benefits. I recommend that you reject the option and purchase the full PIP coverage provided by the standard policy.
Recently, a new option has surfaced. This option allows you to select your health insurance, instead of your car insurance, to cover your accident related medical bills. In return your car insurance company will slightly reduce your premiums. On its face this seems like a great idea for those of us who have health insurance. However, there are several dangers to this option. The first is if your health insurance has a “cap” on benefits you lose the additional $250,000 of coverage your car insurance would provide if you suffer a catastrophic injury. Also you would make your accident related treatment subject to your health insurances deductibles and limit your treatment to “participating providers”. Finally, if you recover financial compensation for your injuries suffered in the accident you are responsible to pay your health insurance company back out of your recovery. You are NOT required to reimburse your car insurance for your PIP benefits. This reimbursement will significantly reduce any recovery you may obtain.
Finally, 95% of car owners in New Jersey select what is known as the “Limitation Upon Lawsuit” or “Verbal” Threshold Option on their car insurance. Although this option does save you approximately $400 per year it is important that you realize that if you make this selection, you are severely limiting your rights to be compensated from the person who injured you. This option ONLY allows compensation for an injury that falls into one of the following limited categories:
1) Death;
2) Dismemberment;
3) Significant disfigurement;
4) Displaced fractures;
5) Loss of a fetus; and
6) Permanent injury, provable by objective medical evidence, which will not heal
to function normally even with medical treatment.
As you can see the above list is extremely limited. Please notice terms such as “pain” “suffering”and “disability” do NOT appear anywhere on this list. If you select this option you can suffer an injury that leaves you in constant pain for the rest of your life, but if the injury does not fit in one of the 6 categories listed above you are not permitted to recover financial compensation.
I understand the savings provided by the “Limitation Upon Lawsuit” may be substantial, therefore I only suggest that you carefully consider what you are giving up when you make this selection.
Car ownership is a serious and complicated matter, with serious risks and obligations, more serious than many contemplate.....often until it is too late. If you own a car, you must accept the responsibility to purchase insurance that will provide you with adequate coverage if you are injured in an accident and will protect your assets if someone else is injured. I am certain when you purchased your car you researched it and chose wisely. Please take the same care and choose your insurance coverage wisely.
As always I am available to answer any of your questions and discuss this issue in more detail.
Visit us at http://www.sfhlaw.com/ for contact information.
DO I HAVE THE RIGHT CAR INSURANCE?
UNFORTUNATELY, by the time someone asks this question it is already too late. Usually, tHIS question comes up AFTER an accident occurs and the victim is stuck with the insurance choices they have already made. The purpose of this letter is to give our clients some idea of what the choices are BEFORE you are involved in an accident. To best explain your choices it is necessary to understand what car insurance is and how it works.
In 1972, New Jersey passed laws that require car owners to purchase insurance that includes bodily injury and property damage liability coverage to protect the owner/insured for claims against them; uninsured motorist coverage to protect the owner/insured if they are injured in an accident with an uninsured driver; and personal injury protection coverage to pay for accident related medical expenses, loss of income or loss of essential services.
The reason for this required insurance is to provide prompt compensation to people injured in car accidents and to provide financial security to cover those claims. This law allows you, as a car owner, to buy insurance that protects your own financial assets if you injure someone in a car accident. In addition you can buy insurance that will provide coverage to you, family members who reside with you and to occupants of your car if they are injured in an accident caused an uninsured or under insured driver.
A “standard” policy must provide liability and uninsured motorist coverage with minimum limits of $15,000 per injured person with a total of $30,000 per accident. This is the MINIMUM amount of coverage. Oftentimes your insurance agent will tell you that this MINIMUM coverage combined with collision insurance provides you with “FULL” coverage. That is incorrect. This coverage only protects you up to $15,000 per injured person and $30,000 TOTAL no matter how many people are injured. As an extreme example imagine you are responsible for an accident with a minivan containing seven passengers, all of whom are injured. This “FULL” coverage will only provide you with liability insurance of $30,000 for all seven injured people, after that you are on your own. If it is your family of seven in the mini van and you are all injured by an uninsured driver your insurance company will only provide $30,000 in coverage to be divided amongst the seven injured family members.
Most people are unaware that you have the option to buy additional uninsured coverage up to $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident split limits or $500,000 single limit. The sole requirement is that you must also increase your liability coverage to the same amounts. Your insurance agent often does not suggest you increase your coverage to better protect yourself and your family for one simple reason, their profit is in writing the initial policy. Premium increases for more coverage are relatively minor compared to the initial cost of the policy and do not make up for the greater financial exposure to the insurance company should serious injury occur.
When asked, I recommend that, in a perfect world, you purchase car insurance with liability and uninsured/under insured coverage of $500,000. In addition, you should purchase a personal catastrophe umbrella with liability limits of $1,000,000. Some insurance companies offer an umbrella with uninsured/under insured motorist coverage of $1,000,000. Although this increase will raise your premiums, I think, after the initial “sticker shock” of the standard policy, you will be surprised to learn it will be less than you had feared.
In addition, standard policies provide Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits with medical expenses up to $250,000 and a deductible of $250.00. The law allows you to reduce the amount of medical expense coverage as low as $15,000 and to increase the deductible to as high as $2,500.00. If you figure it out, the $15,000 of coverage with a $2,500 deductible only provides you with $12,500 worth of coverage if you have a severe injury. Worse if your injury is not severe and you have relatively typical medical treatment (under $2,500) your car insurance provides you with NO coverage. This option is a trick it saves you very little but reduces the insurance companies responsibility from $250,000 to $12,500. The small amount of savings on your premium does not justify the tremendous loss in benefits. I recommend that you reject the option and purchase the full PIP coverage provided by the standard policy.
Recently, a new option has surfaced. This option allows you to select your health insurance, instead of your car insurance, to cover your accident related medical bills. In return your car insurance company will slightly reduce your premiums. On its face this seems like a great idea for those of us who have health insurance. However, there are several dangers to this option. The first is if your health insurance has a “cap” on benefits you lose the additional $250,000 of coverage your car insurance would provide if you suffer a catastrophic injury. Also you would make your accident related treatment subject to your health insurances deductibles and limit your treatment to “participating providers”. Finally, if you recover financial compensation for your injuries suffered in the accident you are responsible to pay your health insurance company back out of your recovery. You are NOT required to reimburse your car insurance for your PIP benefits. This reimbursement will significantly reduce any recovery you may obtain.
Finally, 95% of car owners in New Jersey select what is known as the “Limitation Upon Lawsuit” or “Verbal” Threshold Option on their car insurance. Although this option does save you approximately $400 per year it is important that you realize that if you make this selection, you are severely limiting your rights to be compensated from the person who injured you. This option ONLY allows compensation for an injury that falls into one of the following limited categories:
1) Death;
2) Dismemberment;
3) Significant disfigurement;
4) Displaced fractures;
5) Loss of a fetus; and
6) Permanent injury, provable by objective medical evidence, which will not heal
to function normally even with medical treatment.
As you can see the above list is extremely limited. Please notice terms such as “pain” “suffering”and “disability” do NOT appear anywhere on this list. If you select this option you can suffer an injury that leaves you in constant pain for the rest of your life, but if the injury does not fit in one of the 6 categories listed above you are not permitted to recover financial compensation.
I understand the savings provided by the “Limitation Upon Lawsuit” may be substantial, therefore I only suggest that you carefully consider what you are giving up when you make this selection.
Car ownership is a serious and complicated matter, with serious risks and obligations, more serious than many contemplate.....often until it is too late. If you own a car, you must accept the responsibility to purchase insurance that will provide you with adequate coverage if you are injured in an accident and will protect your assets if someone else is injured. I am certain when you purchased your car you researched it and chose wisely. Please take the same care and choose your insurance coverage wisely.
As always I am available to answer any of your questions and discuss this issue in more detail.
Visit us at http://www.sfhlaw.com/ for contact information.
DWI/DUI/ALCOTEST UPDATE
In an UNPUBLISHED decision released yesterday captioned State v. Maricic, the Appellate Division ruled that a defendant in a drunk driving case has the right to receive as part of his discovery the data download stored on the Alcotest instrument used for his test for the period ranging from the date of the last calibration until the date of the defendant's arrest. The defendant is required to pay for any associated, additional costs with producing this discovery. In addition, the defendant is also entitled as part of his discovery to the repair records for the Alcotest instrument upon which he was tested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)