The 60-day period within which an employer must pay an award is a very significant deadline, as is shown in Van Skiver v. Alessandra Miscellaneous Metal Works, No. A-2912-24 (App. Div. June 18, 2026). In this case, missing the deadline by four days cost the employer $7,300 in penalties, counsel fees and costs.
The accident in this case occurred on February 14, 2019. The Order Approving Settlement in the amount of $24,381 was entered on December 4, 2024. The 60-day period in which to pay the award expired on February 2, 2025.
Respondent wrote to petitioner’s attorney about a child support lien on December 10, 2024, and petitioner’s counsel promptly replied with information on the lien. Petitioner then wrote to respondent’s counsel on January 14, 2025, and January 16, 2025, asking about payment of the award.
Receiving no reply, petitioner’s attorney wrote again on Friday, January 31, 2025, reminding defense counsel that the 60-day period for payment would expire on February 2, 2025. Counsel suggested payment by overnight delivery to avoid penalties.
On Monday, February 3, 2025, petitioner’s counsel contacted defense counsel again, requesting that the check be sent by overnight delivery. The adjuster for the carrier responded to petitioner’s attorney on February 3, 2025, stating: “I have the checks that I could release out earlier today.” Petitioner’s attorney requested confirmation that the checks had in fact been mailed.
On February 4, 2025, petitioner’s counsel decided to file a motion for penalties because counsel had not heard from anyone that the settlement checks had been mailed. Petitioner received the first permanency check on February 6, 2025 – four days late. The Judge of Compensation awarded interest and penalties in the amount of $5,028.18 (25% of the amount of the award), plus attorney’s fees ($1,523.75), plus costs of $750. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration.
As part of testimony during the motion for reconsideration, respondent called the Claim Manager, who testified that she had issued the permanency check on January 31, 2025. She added that the print cycle releases the check the next morning with a date postmarked the following day.” She could not say whether the check was mailed and postmarked February 1, 2025. She added that she had no way to prove the check was mailed by February 2, 2025, which was the date that the 60-day period ran.
The Judge of Compensation denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration, and an appeal followed. On appeal, Respondent argued that there was no violation of the 60-day rule because the check had been issued on January 31, 2025, which was within the 60-day period. The Appellate Division did not agree with this argument.
The Court reviewed N.J.S.A. 34:15-28, which provides for a penalty when an award is not paid within 60 days. The Court also reviewed N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.2, which provides for costs, simple interest on moneys due and an additional assessment not to exceed 25% of moneys due “for unreasonable delay.” This provision also provides for reasonable counsel fees in enforcing the order. In addition, the rule permits an additional penalty not exceeding $5,000 for unreasonable delay payable to the Second Injury Fund. That was not assessed in this case.
The Appellate Division noted that this law is “permissive legislation,” meaning that a violation of the deadline does not automatically require penalties, costs and counsel fees. It is within the judge’s discretion to award penalties. The Appellate Division commented, “The unexplained delay, lack of communication, and failure to provide confirmation of mailing all weigh in favor of the judge’s determination the delay was unreasonable. We conclude the judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing a monetary penalty against respondent, as authorized by N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.”
The case provides a wake-up call for employers, third party administrators, adjusters and practitioners. In assessing the penalty, the Judge of Compensation undoubtedly considered the numerous efforts of petitioner’s counsel to notify respondent that the 60-day deadline was approaching. This case is important because it is only the second Appellate Division case dealing with failure to pay a permanency award within 60 days under N.J.S.A. 34:15-28. While this case is unpublished, there is also one published case on this issue, namely Ripp v. Cnty of Hudson, 472 N.J. Super. 600 (App. Div. 2022). In that case the Appellate Division reversed a $43,700 penalty against the County of Hudson for a 16 day late payment (76 days after the entry of the award) and requested that the Judge of Compensation consider a more limited penalty.
