Notable Wins

Client: Costco Wholesale

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Trial Attorney: Jennifer A. Cottell, Esq. 

Brief Attorney: McKenna R. Parris, Esq.  

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Petitioner’s Motion for Medical and Temporary Benefits.  The trial court found Costco’s two expert witnesses, both authorized treating doctors, more credible than the Petitioner’s medical expert who did not review significant medical records including an MRI of the lumbar spine and an EMG study.  He was also unaware of the Petitioner’s prior back injury.  Nevertheless, his treatment of one injection provided only 50% relief for one week, and he had no definitive future treatment plan for the Petitioner.  The trial judge concluded that the Petitioner did not sustain her burden of proving that she was in need of further causally related medical treatment.  The Appellate judges found that there was sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the trial court’s decision and affirmed.

Client:  Garden State Municipal Joint Insurance Fund

Court: Workers’ Compensation 

Trial and Brief Attorney: Keith E. Nagy, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

The petitioner, a Department Head for the City, alleged his employer was targeting him unfairly with disciplinary charges. The petitioner testified that he felt stress and nausea after reading an email regarding an investigation and a hearing with possible disciplinary action. He was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with a heart attack.  Petitioner relied on Dr. Waller as his expert. Dr. Waller admitted that petitioner had many risk factors, including a prior heart attack, a family history of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and prior smoking history. Nonetheless, Dr. Waller opined that the email caused the heart attack.  Respondent presented lay witness testimony refuting the petitioner’s factual allegations. Respondent then relied upon the expert witness testimony of Dr. Murray Weinstock who testified that the petitioner was likely to have a heart attack for all of his non work related risk factors and that the work stress was not in excess of the claimant’s daily living.

The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.2 Pursuant to the Statute, the petitioner must show evidence of a) that there was work effort and strain involving a “substantial condition,” and b) that it is in “excess of the wear and tear” of normal daily living and the work strain “in reasonable medical probability” caused the heart attack “in a material degree.”  Feltman v. Transistor Devices, Inc., 355 N.J. Super. 36, 51 (App. Div. 2002). Further, the New Jersey Supreme Court has stated that feelings of insecurity about one’s job is not “a risk arising out of the employer’s work. If such worry, about job security alone, which produces a heart seizure would establish compensability, the employer would become an insurer against such attacks.” Walck v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 56 N.J. 533, 557 (1970).

The Honorable Michael Dillon agreed with respondent’s position that the petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof and entered an Order dismissing the claim with prejudice.