Notable Wins

Client: Nordstrom

Court: Workers’ Compensation 

Brief Attorney: John H. Geaney, Esq. and Keith E. Nagy, Esq.

Trial Attorney: Keith E. Nagy, Esq.

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

The petitioner filed a Claim Petition alleging that he punched a wall and injured his hand after being yelled at by his manager. The matter was denied from the outset as the injury was not compensable given that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and the petitioner’s injury was intentionally self-inflicted.

The parties proceeded to a bifurcated trial on the issue of compensability with the respondent relying on the binding precedent of Klein v. New York Times Co., 317 N.J. Super. 41 (App. Div. 1998).

During trial, the petitioner testified that he did not intentionally punch the wall but that he was “gesticulating” after he had a verbal altercation with his manager when his hand accidentally hit the wall. The respondent presented the witness of the manager who testified that the petitioner stated that he punched the wall. The respondent also presented the witness of a co-worker who testified that they often joked about the petitioner being a “boxer” and never denied punching the wall.

Following post-trial briefs, the Court found that the petitioner was not credible and that his story lacked logic. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s Claim Petition was a judicial admission binding the petitioner to the description that he punched the wall. The Court also found that the respondent’s witnesses were credible and logical. The matter was dismissed with prejudice.

Client: Liberty Mutual Mid-Atlantic Insurance Company

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County

Brief Attorney: Edward F. Kuhn, III, Esq.

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

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Montgomery County, PA for injuries she suffered in a car accident. Plaintiff agreed to a binding arbitration with high/low parameters. The high was the defendant’s liability policy limits of $100,000. Plaintiff then filed a separate lawsuit for underinsured benefits from Liberty Mutual in Burlington County, NJ.

Plaintiff was awarded less than the defendant’s policy limits in the Montgomery County binding arbitration. Liberty then moved for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff should be collaterally estopped from further pursing her underinsured claim against Liberty Mutual since the defendant’s policy limits were not exhausted.

The trial court agreed with our position that Plaintiff was barred by the collateral estoppel doctrine as Plaintiff has a full and complete opportunity to present her case to the arbitrator and the amount of Plaintiff’s damages were found below the defendant’s policy limits. As such, Plaintiff’s underinsured claim against Liberty Mutual was dismissed.

Client: Walmart

Court: Workers’ Compensation

Trial Attorney:  Nicholas A. Dibble, Esq.

Brief Attorney:  Nicholas A. Dibble, Esq. 

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

In a truly peculiar fact pattern the petitioner alleged that she was bit by a dog at a BBQ while working as a cashier at Walmart.  The respondent denied the claim and filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the incident did not occur within the course and scope of employment.  A trial ensued on the Motion to Dismiss.

The petitioner was the first person to take the stand and testified that she worked at Walmart on the date of the incident, however, prior to the incident she had clocked out to lunch.  While clocked out for lunch she left the store, was picked up by her husband and taken to a BBQ at his friend’s house where she was bit by the dog.  Notably, the owner of the dog worked as a manager at a different Walmart location. There were more than a dozen people at the  BBQ but the only people there who worked for Walmart were the petitioner and the dog owner.   Although the BBQ was scheduled for the Saturday of the Fourth of July weekend, the petitioner testified that she was at the BBQ for a job interview with the dog’s owner for a position at a different Walmart location.  Her husband testified next and confirmed this.

The third witness offered by the petitioner was the dog’s owner who disagreed with the petitioner’s testimony.  The owner testified that they may have discussed potential openings at the dog owner’s store but at no time was the BBQ a job interview.  Following the testimony of the dog owner the petitioner rested.  Before proceeding any further with trial the respondent moved for the case to be dismissed immediately given the lack of evidence demonstrating that the dog bite occurred within the course and scope of employment. The Judge of Compensation agreed and dismissed the entire claim with prejudice as the dog bite did not occur within the course and scope of employment.

Client: Wawa, Inc. and Wild Goose Holding Co., Inc.

Court: Superior Court, Camden County

Brief Attorney:  Betsy G. Ramos, Esq. and Voris M. Tejada, Jr., Esq.

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

Plaintiff initiated suit after sustaining serious injuries in a fall which occurred at a Wawa store at 1:40 a.m. While plaintiff did not remember slipping or falling, he alleged that when he regained consciousness, he observed a large puddle of water in the area where his head landed. Video surveillance footage showed that when plaintiff fell, he fell on top of a yellow “wet floor” cone which had been placed by Wawa’s employees.

Capehart & Scatchard, P.A., on behalf of Wawa, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. While there was a dispute as to whether there was any water on the floor which caused plaintiff’s fall, the Court found that, even assuming the existence of water, Wawa satisfied its duty to warn by placing the above-referenced warning cone. Plaintiff argued that there was a question of fact as to whether the cone was placed in a location which gave reasonable notice of the condition. However, Capehart argued, and the Court found, that given the fact that plaintiff fell on top of the warning cone, it was clearly placed in close enough proximity to the alleged water to provide warning of same. The Court thus granted Wawa’s Motion, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

Client: Amtrust

Court: Division of Workers’ Compensation

Trial Attorney:  Claire Y. Ringel, Esq.

Brief Attorney:  Claire Y. Ringel, Esq.

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

The worker was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident while bringing his work vehicle from his home to his place of employment before vacation. The case was denied as compensable based on the “going and coming” rule, that injuries prior to arriving at a workplace are generally non compensable.

Judge Del Valle-Koch conducted a bifurcated trial on the issue of compensability and, after the petitioner’s testimony and briefs, ruled in the respondent’s favor that the accident was non compensable.