The decision in Landa Spine Center v. Posillico, No. A-1311-25 (App. Div. November 2, 2026) has provided an answer to a long-standing dispute over whether the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation has subject matter jurisdiction over a medical provider application where the only New Jersey connections are the residence of the injured worker and the location of the medical treatment.
The facts were not in dispute. Dominic Valinotti suffered a work injury in 2016. He was injured installing pipes in a building in Bronx, New York. He was a member of a union that operated in New York. He filed a claim with the New York Board three days after the accident. He later underwent spinal fusion surgery in New Jersey in March 2018. Dr. Joshua Landa performed the surgery in New Jersey.
The Spine Center (hereinafter the “applicant”) contended that the fusion surgery was approved by Starr Indemnity and Liability (hereinafter “Starr”) and was medically necessary. The surgery charge was $203,000. Starr paid $4,197.40.
An MPA (Medical Provider Application) was filed in the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation in February 2021. The employer opposed the application and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The owner of Posillico prepared a certification noting that Valinotti only worked for the company in New York, never in New Jersey, although the company did have some limited work in New Jersey. The parties agreed that there was no contractual provision specifying that New Jersey Workers’ Compensation law would govern Valinotti’s workers’ compensation claim.
The Judge of Compensation heard arguments on the employer’s motion to dismiss on November 18, 2025. He entered an order granting the employer’s motion to dismiss for several reasons, including the fact that Valinotti’s contacts were principally in New York and that residence alone has never formed a basis in New Jersey for jurisdiction. The Judge of Compensation reviewed the leading case of Marconi v. United Airlines, 460 N.J. Super. 330, 335 (App. Div. 2019). That case outlined all six jurisdictional factors set forth In Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law. The Judge of Compensation observed that Valinotti only clearly met one of the six factors.
Landa Spine Center appealed the dismissal of its MPA. The Appellate Division first commented that the Division’s jurisdiction is “limited to that granted by the Legislature and therefore cannot be inflated by consent, waiver, estoppel or judicial inclination.” (citing Marconi, 460 N.J. Super. at 337). The Court added that New Jersey will only accept subject matter jurisdiction where there is a substantial state interest. (citing Williams v. Port Auth of N.Y. & N.J., 175 N.J. 82 (2003)).
The Court considered the six jurisdictional factors outlined in Larson’s Treatise and discussed by the Judge of Compensation in his decision:
- Place where the injury occurred;
- Place of making of the contract;
- Place where the employment relationship exists or is carried out;
- Place where the industry is localized;
- Place where the employee resides; or
- Place whose statute the parties expressly adopted by contract.
The Court affirmed the reasoning of the Judge of Compensation noting that “residency alone is an insufficient basis to confer jurisdiction on the Division for extra-territorial workplace injuries.” (citing Marconi, 460 N.J. Super. at 340).
The applicant also argued that N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 provides that “exclusive jurisdiction for any disputed medical charge arising from any claim for compensation for a work-related injury or illness shall be vested in the Division.” The Court said that this statement must be considered in context of the statute as a whole. “We do not read that provision as providing for jurisdiction over all applications for medical provider services in all circumstances where the services and the provider are located in New Jersey. Instead, the provision must be read in context of the limited jurisdiction of the Division.”
The applicant also suggested that if its medical application should be dismissed, the applicant could pursue direct reimbursement from Valinotti. The Court flatly rejected this potential outcome. “The dismissal does not lead to a result that has been expressly prohibited by the Legislature. See N.J.S.A. 34: 15-15 (providing that a medical provider cannot seek unreimbursed costs from the injured worker). Instead, Landa’s recourse is to pursue its MPA with the New York Board.”
This is a very important decision for practitioners and employers because there are hundreds of pending cases with the very same facts, mostly involving injuries to workers who were hired in New York, injured in New York and who worked in New York but who live in New Jersey and had treatment in New Jersey. The decision underscores the point that if the injured worker cannot file a workers’ compensation claim in New Jersey due to lack of jurisdiction, the medical provider should not have greater rights than the injured worker would have.
