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.