Reopening Claims That Are Dismissed For Lack Of Prosecution

Danter v. Arrow International, Inc., A-0111-09T3, (App. Div. June 30, 2010)
Petitioner s four claim petitions were dismissed on September 19, 2007 pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 34:15-54. The petitioner s attorney received the order dismissing the claims on
September 27, 2007. However, petitioner s attorney did not move to reinstate the four
petitions until October 3, 2008, over one year later. The Honorable Joshua Friedman,
J.W.C. refused to reinstate the petitions.
The Appellate Division ruled there was no impediment to the filing of a timely motion
for reinstatement for nearly the entire one-year statutory period. Despite the considerable
age of most of the petitions in question, and despite the fact that they still were not
capable of being moved due to petitioner's failure to provide discovery, petitioner here did
nothing but adopt a deliberate course of delay, choosing to expend as much of the one-
year period as possible without taking action.
The court reviewed cases where delays beyond even one year were excusable. One
involved a petitioner whose mental condition incapacitated her during the one-year
tatutory time period, and, therefore, she was permitted to reinstate the petition beyond
he one-year period. Beese v. First Nat l Stores, 52 N.J. 196 (1968). But the court said
that in the instant matter, attorney neglect was the main reason for the expiration of the
one-year period. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of Judge Friedman to refuse
to reinstate the petitions.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

From all of us at Silvi, Fedele & Honschke Attorneys At Law, have a Happy, Healthy and Safe Thanksgiving.


www.sfhlaw.com

New Jersey Appellate Division Rules Against Use Of Stalker Lidar

The New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that the laser speed-measuring device known  as the "Stalker Lidar" has not been proven to be scientifically reliable in New Jersey. The Court noted that  although laser devices are generally accepted in the scientific community, in this case, there was no evidence as to the internal workings of the device.

 

According to the Court,  "We do not know whether the accuracy of the Stalker Lidar device has been established through independent testing. In short, the device has not been established as scientifically reliable in New Jersey. As a consequence, it may not be used in the trial courts as proof of speed until its accuracy has been established[.]"

 

 DOCKET NO. A-6199-08T4

 

www.sfhlaw.com

Heart Attack Claim Held Up in New Jersey Workers' Compensation Court

The claimant contended in her dependency claim that strenuous
work and very warm temperatures led to her husband's heart attack and death.
Respondent argued that the decedent's prior hypertension, high
cholesterol and diabetes caused his heart attack and asserted that he would have had
the heart attack anyway. The legal issue centered on whether the work effort which
decedent engaged in was material and led to the decedent s heart attack.
The judge of compensation ruled for petitioner and held that the overtime work
contributed in a material way to the death. The Appellate Division
affirmed after reviewing the terms of N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.2 That provision puts emphasis on
proof of work effort in excess of the claimant's daily living. In other words, there is a
comparison made between the extent of exertion in one's normal life with the extent of
exertion on the date of injury.  The court found that petitioners work effort on March 11, 2006 constituted a material worsening of his heart problems. In short, there was sufficient credible evidence in the
record, considering the proofs as a whole, to conclude that the work effort
contributed materially to the heart attack.

Reading v. Glen Gary Shale and Brick Company, A-1525-09T3 (App. Div. October 22, 2010)

www.sfhlaw.com

Effect of Expungement on Forfeiture of Public Office

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a criminal sentence including an order of forfeiture of public office with a provision for no future public employment does survive an expungement of the underlying offense. In this case, a police officer was convicted of a disorderly persons offense that touched upon her office. As a result she was subject to forfeiture of public office and a lifetime prohibition of employment with any political subdivision of the State of New Jersey. The petitioner subsequently got an order of expungement for the conviction and argued that the order eliminated both the underlying conviction and the forfeiture bar. However, the Court ruled that while the petitioner was clearly entitled to an expungement, the forfeiture requirement survives the expungement and continues as a bar to public employment.

In the Matter of the Expungement Petition of D.H.

http://www.sfhlaw.com/