Full Service Law Firm in Mt. Laurel Township, NJ | Capehart Scatchard

Other

View OTHER BLOGS

Bid for Public Contract Deemed Compliant When Post Office Box Address of Owners of Bidder Given As Opposed to Home Address

In a published decision of the Appellate Division in Asphalt Paving Sys. v. Borough of Stone Harbor, 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 136 (App. Div. Nov. 14, 2022), the Court was asked to decide whether a bidder to a public contract, to be issued by Borough of Stone Harbor, submitted a statutorily compliant bid by listing its shareholders’ post office box, instead of a home address. The Court had to address whether N.J.S.A. 52:25-24.2, which required that no business entity may be awarded a public contract unless it submits with its bid “a statement setting forth the names and addresses of the individuals owning more than ten percent of the entity” mandated that a home address for the owners be provided.

In August 2020, the Borough of Stone Harbor had issued a notice to bidders, inviting the submission of bids for a construction project. Fred M. Schiavone Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest bid and Asphalt Paving Systems, Inc. had the second lowest bid. With its bid, Schiavone identified Fred and Roberta Schiavone as its two stockholders and provided a post office address for them. The bid was awarded to Schiavone as the lowest bidder.

In October 2020, Asphalt Paving filed a lawsuit challenging the award of the contract to Schiavone on the basis that Schiavone failed to meet the requirement of N.J.S.A. 52:25-24.2 because home addresses of the two stockholders were not provided, despite the bid specifications asking for the inclusion of the owners’ home addresses. The trial judge determined that this omission was a “waivable” requirement because it would not “deprive the municipality of its assurance that the contract would be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to its specified requirements and would not give the bidder a position of advantage over other bidders or … undermine the necessary common standard of competition.”

This ruling was appealed to the Appellate Division. The Court rejected Asphalt Paving’s argument that the bidder’s owners’ home addresses must be provided. The Appellate Division noted that it must examine the language of the statute to determine legislative intent in enacting a law. A court may not rewrite an enactment of the Legislature and “presume the Legislature intended something other than that expressed by way of the statute’s plain language.”

Here, the Court noted that the word “address” could suggest multiple things because a person could have multiple addresses – home, business, or mailing address. The Appellate Division found that “[t]here was no evidence in the enactment itself, and nothing about the statutory goals the Legislature was pursuing by enacting the statute, to suggest a desire to compel the production of one of these types of addresses.”

Finally, the Court stated that it would ascribe to the word “address” its generally accepted meaning and concluded that the Legislature intended that a bid would comply with N.J.S.A. 52:25-24.2, “so long as the bidder provided the home, business or mailing address for each owner of ten or more percent.” If the Legislature intended to require the bidder’s owners to provide their home address, it would have stated “home addresses” in the statute versus just using the term “addresses.”

Hence, the trial court’s decision upholding the award to Schiavone was affirmed.

New Law Lowers Cost of Obtaining Medical Records

We are living through a period of sharp inflation in almost everything from food and gasoline to automobiles and airfare, but one area where costs are sharply declining in New Jersey pertains to the cost of getting copies of medical records.  Governor Phil Murphy signed S 2253 on September 22, 2022.  This legislation dramatically lowers the costs that hospitals and physicians can charge for providing copies of medical records.  

We begin first with a key definition.  The bill refers to a “Legally authorized representative.” That means the patient’s spouse, domestic partner, or civil union partner; the patient’s immediate next of kin; the patient’s legal guardian; the patient’s attorney; the patient’s automobile insurer; or the patient’s worker’s compensation carrier, if the carrier is authorized to access to the patient’s treatment or billing records by contract or law, provided that access by a worker’s compensation carrier shall be limited only to that portion of the treatment or billing record that is relevant to the specific work-related incident at issue in the worker’s compensation claim.

Here are the allowable fees for a legally authorized representative under the new law:

  1. Medical records in paper, electronic format, microfilm or microfiche  – no more than $1 per page – capped at $50 per individual admission or patient record
  2. No charge for copies of billing records
  3. Reproduction of x-rays shall be no more than $15 per printed image or $30 per CD or DVD – plus an administrative fee of $10
  4. Search fees can be no more than $20 per request
  5. Certification fees can be no more than $10 per certification
  6. Delivery fees are at cost, plus sales tax, if applicable

“Authorized third party” means a third party, who is not a legally authorized representative of the patient, with a valid authorization, subpoena, legal process, or court order granting access to a patient’s medical or billing records.

Here are the allowable fees for authorized third parties under the new law:

  1. Medical and billing records not on microfilm/microfiche – no more than $1 per page – no cap
  2. Records on microfilm/microfiche – $1.50 per image – no cap
  3. Reproduction of x-rays shall be no more than $15 per printed image or $30 per CD or DVD – plus an administrative fee of $10
  4. Search fees can be no more than $20 per request
  5. Certification fees can be no more than $10 per certification
  6. Delivery fees are at cost, plus sales tax, if applicable

Before passage of this new legislation, providers could charge $1 per page up to $125 for copies plus a search fee up to $25.  The new $50 cap represents a significant cost reduction.  Workers’ compensation practitioners need to know about this legislation because it has been routine to obtain requests for records that amount to hundreds of dollars. The law is so new that medical providers and hospitals may not even be aware of the changes. 

Our thanks to Francine Viden, our firm’s excellent librarian, for obtaining the information and organizing the salient changes in the law.

The post New Law Lowers Cost of Obtaining Medical Records appeared first on NJ Workers' Comp Blog.

Beware Child Labor Laws

An often overlooked area of labor and employment law are child labor laws. Such laws exist at both the federal and state level. And they are indeed enforced at each of those levels of government. For example, I am currently involved in a federal labor wage and hour audit and one item requested by the investigator was all documents reflecting the client’s hiring of minors. Most of us are familiar with these types of documents that were requested in my audit, i.e. working papers that a minor needs to be employed. But did you know that there are other restrictions under Federal and New Jersey law that go along with hiring minors, such as limits on the number of hours that the minor can work and that you must give minors a certain number of break periods per shift? For the Chipotle restaurant chain, it recently learned the hard way about these requirements, to the tune of a $7.75 million dollar fine paid to the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”) for violating these New Jersey child labor law requirements that apply whenever an employer employs any minor worker who is under the age of Eighteen (18) years old.

The NJDOL led the investigation against Chipotle and collaborated with the Affirmative Civil Rights and Labor Enforcement Section of the Department of Public Safety’s Division of Law. The audit covered violations cited at four Chipotle locations—Fort Lee, Bloomfield, Mays Landing and Parsippany—between 2016 and 2018. New Jersey is not the only state that had uncovered child labor violations by the franchise. In Massachusetts, Chipotle agreed to pay $1.4 million in restitution and penalties for child labor violations at 50 locations within that state. Employers should be aware: the NJDOL often investigates companies when the agency learns that other governmental agencies have investigated and fined a company. This is frequently the source for why companies get audited in New Jersey.

The violations alleged against Chipotle included its failure to abide by legally set limits on the number of hours minors are allowed to work and the failure to provide both timely and sufficient meal breaks for its minor employees. Along with paying the hefty fine previously mentioned above, Chipotle also signed an agreement to develop and implement measures for monitoring future child labor law compliance. Specifically, Chipotle agreed to a long-term strategy to ensure the franchise’s future compliance with New Jersey state law, including periodic self-audits, designing a child labor compliance manual, and mandatory training for all current and future managers, supervisors, and staff members. The company also agreed to other various conditions to foster a safe working environment that is both lawful and rewarding to minor employees.

So what is the moral of this story?  Child labor law compliance does not just stop at obtaining working papers for your minor employees. Remember that child labor laws in New Jersey specify the number of hours minors may work depending on both their age and whether it is summer or if school is in session. Failing to comply with these requirements can be costly for your business. Just ask Chipotle about that. 

New Jersey Division of Workers’ Comp Has Its First Woman and Hispanic Director

Few readers of this blog may know that the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation achieved a number of notable firsts this year with the appointment of the Honorable Maria Del Valle Koch as Director of the Division in June 2022.  Director Koch is the first woman Director and the first Hispanic Director in the history of the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation.  This is particularly noteworthy right now because September 15, 2022 through October 15, 2022 is National Spanish Heritage Month, an annual observance established by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 to celebrate the histories, culture and contributions of Hispanic Americans. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Director Koch for the first time, and she was kind enough to allow me to interview her for this blog regarding her Hispanic heritage and her aspirations as Director.

Director Koch grew up in Jersey City, N.J. with four sisters and two brothers.  She said education was stressed at home.  She attended James J. Ferris High School and received her B.A. in History from St. Peter’s University in Jersey City.  She graduated in 1987 from Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, N.J. 

Her mother, who is now 94 years of age, was born in Cuba and came to the United States in 1955.   Her natural father and her step-father were both born in Puerto Rico.  The Director learned to speak, read and write Spanish.   “I’m very proud of my being Puerto Rican and Cuban.”  She added, “The hallmark of my family is this: my mom told us to be proud of our Hispanic culture and to be proud to be American.”  Both of her brothers were born in Cuba, and both served in Vietnam.  She added, “We all believe in serving our country and our community.”

Director Koch worked in general practice in Jersey City, then worked for the Middlesex Region of the Public Defender’s Office until 1996.  She established her own law practice in 1996.  She worked as a Public Defender from 2002 to 2008 in Perth Amboy, N.J. In 2014, she was appointed a Judge of Compensation.  In December 2020 she was appointed Administrative Supervising Judge while sitting in Plainfield vicinage.  Governor Phil Murphy nominated her as Director of the Division on June 9, 2022.

Director Koch had not practiced workers’ compensation law before becoming a Judge of Compensation.  She credited several former judges of compensation with helping her develop a deep appreciation for the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act, including former Judge of Compensation Nilda Hernandez, former Judge of Compensation Yolanda Adrianzen and former Judge of Compensation James Welch.  In regard to being the first woman Director of the Division, she said, “All of the women judges who came before me have set the standard very high.”

Director Koch describes her style of leadership as collaborative, professional and consensus building.  “What motivates me as Director is that I am part of a greater task to do right by people.”  She summed up her approach as “be kind and be collegial.”  In addition to running the Division of Workers’ Compensation, she handles seven lists in the Plainfield vicinage.  “As a workers’ compensation judge, I have to set the tone and example for the way that we treat injured workers, attorneys, and everyone who is part of the Division.”

Director Koch commented that one of the major challenges in recent years for the Division, as for all courts, has been the COVID pandemic. “We in the Division have had an uncanny ability to think outside the box.”  She added, “Like a good ballplayer, you have to adjust with each at bat and with each pitch.”  Utilizing Zoom and Teams effectively has made a big difference,” she added.  “My mission and my goal is to continue the high quality standard of excellence during the pandemic crisis that the Division has always demonstrated in New Jersey.”

The Director remains optimistic about the future of the Division.  “Our Division has stood out as a court that is second to none in its ability to produce for workers and for all stakeholders.”  She is hopeful that more judges will be nominated in the coming years.

The Director lives at the Jersey shore and when she is not working, she said she enjoys sailing and surf boarding.  She has three children who are a big part of her life. She also remains an ardent fan of the New York Yankees and the New York Giants.  She noted, “The Giants did not look so good in their most recent game and need to do a little better.”

Our thanks to the Director for allowing readers to learn more about her very interesting personal background and her goals for the Division in the coming years.

The post New Jersey Division of Workers’ Comp Has Its First Woman and Hispanic Director appeared first on NJ Workers' Comp Blog.

New Jersey Revamps Its Offer of Judgment Rule

The New Jersey Offer of Judgment Rule permits any party to make an “offer to take judgment” either in the party’s favor (if a plaintiff) or against the offeror (if a defendant). The rationale for this rule is to encourage and facilitate a settlement because of the consequences of non-acceptance of the offer. Pursuant to a court rule change, effective September 1, 2022, among other changes, this rule has been revamped to address how offers can be made in a multi-party case.

Under this revised rule, prior to service or filing of a notice of acceptance, an offeror may withdraw an offer by serving the offeree and filing a notice of withdrawal with the court.

The revised rule did not change the consequences of non-acceptance. For an offer made by a defendant, if the judgment is within 80% of the offer or less, then the offeror is entitled to attorney’s fees and litigation expenses incurred after the date of the non-acceptance. But there are no consequences, if the claim is dismissed, a no-cause verdict is returned, only nominal damages are awarded, a fee allowance would conflict with a fee-shifting statute or rule of court and an allowance would impose undue hardship or otherwise result in unfairness to the offeree. Per the revised court rule, the burden is on the offeree to establish the offeree’s claim of undue hardship or lack of fairness.

As for an offer of judgment made by a plaintiff, if the plaintiff obtains an award of 120% of the offer or more, then in addition to costs of suit, the plaintiff is entitled to all reasonable litigation expenses following non-acceptance, reasonable attorney’s fee incurred after the non-acceptance, and prejudgment interest of 8% on the judgment from the offer date or the discovery end date, whichever is later.

The revised rule underwent a major revamp in cases involving multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants. If one or more plaintiffs seek a claim that is derivative of the claim of another plaintiff (such as a claim of a spouse for a loss of consortium claim), the claimants may make a single unallocated offer. Otherwise, if there are multiple plaintiffs, each may file and serve any offer individually.

The revised rule also changed the rule when there are multiple defendants and what happens when a counteroffer is made to an offer of judgment. Where there are multiple defendants, and a claimant obtains a judgment in an amount of 120% or more of a global offer made, the claimant will be allowed those recoverable expenses and interest, on a joint and several basis (meaning all defendants are responsible for the whole amount that a successful claimant can recover.)

If, however, there is a global counteroffer and plaintiff obtains a “favorable” determination, each defendant would be responsible for the portion of expenses and fees equal to the percentage for which the defendant was individually adjudicated. In the event the defendants obtain a global favorable determination, plaintiff will be responsible for the expenses and fees payable pro rata to each defendant in accordance with that defendant’s proportionate share of the offer.

The revised rule also addresses the consequences if only one defendant or less than all defendants make counteroffers. Essentially, any consequences of a favorable determination would focus on that offer and be limited to that defendant’s adjudicated responsibility and be based upon the individual offer.

However, the rule gets more complicated if all defendants make a counteroffer, then it is treated as a global counteroffer and the consequences to an individual defendant will depend upon if the plaintiff obtains a favorable determination that is more than 120% of their adjudicated responsibility.

The upshot of this rule is that, in multi-defendant cases, defendants should analyze and determine if at least an individual counteroffer should be made if a plaintiff makes a global offer of judgment. Otherwise, any defendant on a joint and several basis, could be responsible to pay the entire consequences awarded in the event of a favorable determination for the plaintiff.

Masking and Social Distancing Requirements to be Concluded in New Jersey Civil Courts

The New Jersey Supreme Court has issued a new order, concluding its order that required all participants in jury proceedings to maintain three feet of social distancing, as well as wear a mask. This order will be effective on September 1, 2022.

Jurors will continue to begin their jury service virtually and, at that time, may raise any concerns about reporting in person based on COVID-19. After the mandatory virtual orientation phase, judges will continue to have the discretion to continue with jury selection either virtually or in person.

This court order is based upon the new CDC guidelines that, due to the changed circumstances, “including high levels of COVID-19 immunity, widespread availability of vaccines and boosters, and approved treatment options,” that the CDC was no longer recommending social distancing or masking as “general mitigation strategies.”

Accordingly, the judiciary concluded that it could end the three feet social distancing requirement for trials and permit, as opposed to requiring, masking.

With this new order in place, the Court anticipates that it will support more jury trials, especially trials involving detained criminal defendants, but still continue to protect the health of prospective jurors.

Before this order was in place, those counties which did conduct in person trials had the jurors spread out in the jury box and then throughout the audience. Masking was required unless you were speaking. Having the jurors back in the jury box will make it logistically easier to present to the jury, as well as make more courtrooms available for trials. That should help with the backlog of cases.

Most counties remain backed up in trying civil cases but we have seen an uptick in trial listings in some counties. Many counties still have a criminal trial list, however, that are taking priority over civil cases.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Protects Public School Coach’s Post-Game Prayer

By: Angela Reading, Law Clerk

Editor: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

On June 27, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District held that a public school football coach’s prayers on the football field, in public after football games, were protected under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. The ruling highlights a conflict between First Amendment rights in public schools: the right to freely practice and express religion and the right of others to be free from the state endorsing religion.

For years, Joseph Kennedy, an assistant football coach in Bremerton, Washington, walked to the 50-yard line after games and visibly offered a prayer – first alone, but later with players and even some members of the opposing team joining him. When school officials learned of this practice, they asked him to stop, concerned that students may feel compelled to participate and the practice would give the impression that the district endorsed the religious activity, as the coach was still “on-duty” as a district employee. The coach temporarily agreed to stop but soon resumed his post-game prayers, declining offers by district officials to accommodate his prayer in other, less public ways. The school district placed the coach on administrative leave and, eventually, declined to renew his contract for the following season.

The coach sued in federal court, alleging that the school district’s actions violated the First Amendment. Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the school district. They concluded that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which protects citizens from a state-endorsed religion, required public school districts to prevent teachers from praying where students might see them because students might feel coerced into joining in prayer.

The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. In viewing the facts of this case, the Court determined that the coach’s conduct was private prayer. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that two other clauses in the First Amendment, the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, protected a public employee’s right to engage in private prayer on school grounds, even if students might join in, and that the Establishment Clause does not require the government to single out religious expression for “special disfavor.”

The majority rejected a line of cases beginning with Lemon v. Kurtzman. In Lemon, the Court created a test for when religious expression could rise to the level of an “establishment of religion.” In overturning Lemon, the Court held that the Establishment Clause should be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings. The Court stated, “The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”

The Court also dismissed the school district’s argument that students might have felt obligated to join the coach’s prayers. The Court noted that in this case, the coach’s “private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion.”

Moving forward, school districts should exercise caution in restricting employee conduct related to private prayer. Furthermore, this case continues to support the requirement that school districts engage in a fact-specific analysis when faced with employees and First Amendment issues.

Appellate Division Affirms Denial of School District’s Application for Emergency Aid

By: Erika Vasant, Law Clerk

Editor: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

On April 18, 2022 the New Jersey Appellate Division decided the case of In the Matter of the Request for 2019-2020 Emergency Aid Submitted by the Board of Education of the North Warren Regional School District, where the court addressed the New Jersey Department of Education’s (“DOE”) decision to deny a school board’s application for emergency aid for roof repairs. The Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner of Education’s decision that the DOE did not act unreasonably in denying the request.

The North Warren Regional School District (“District”) operated only one school building for middle and high schoolers. The District applied for emergency aid in the amount of $502,795 in an effort to cover a portion of the cost of roof repair for the school. Its reasons for needing the requested amount stemmed from financial distress. The DOE ultimately denied the application, and the District appealed to the New Jersey Appellate Division.

On appeal, the District argued that the DOE’s decision should be reversed because it was unreasonable for the DOE to require all remaining financial reserves of the District to be dedicated to an emergency aid fund. It further argued that the DOE’s decision did not even address the roof repair. Last, the District contended other school districts which were similarly situated received emergency funds, thereby rendering the DOE’s decision arbitrary and capricious.

The Appellate Division, however, first reviewed legislative background and referred to the 2008 School Funding Reform Act, which created a new, ”phased – in” formula to determine the adequacy to which districts were funded but also set aside emergency funds for qualifying districts. In addition, the DOE issued a memorandum that urged school districts to exhaust all available options before filing an application for emergency aid. The memorandum also notified the districts that awards of emergency aid were subject to “rigorous review.” The Appellate Division found that given available data on the record, the District’s budget did not account for funds from the maintenance reserve, transportation costs, and other categories which would have cumulatively covered the costs of the roof repair. Likewise, the Appellate Division concluded that the District’s request was not even remotely related to roof repairs because the total requested corresponded to the District’s reduction in state aid for the past two fiscal years. Finally, the Appellate Division held that the DOE in fact, utilized the same standard for evaluating all districts which was solely based on whether financial distress was experienced.

In general, the Appellate Division also emphasized the wide range of flexibility that agencies are permitted when choosing rulemaking procedures. Specifically, the Appellate Division emphasized the legislature’s approval of “regulatory guidance documents” which included any memoranda set forth by agencies. The memorandum by the DOE was clear with the matters considered in its “rigorous review” for assessment of emergency funds. In essence, the Appellate Division sided with the DOE because there was no actual need for emergency funds by the District with their surplus of funds from other categories. Accordingly, the DOE did not act unreasonably in denying the emergency fund request by the District.

Beware the Job Interview!

Just a few weeks ago, I did a training on an often overlooked dangerous legal area for employers: the job interview. One of the things that I harped on repeatedly during my talk was how participants in the interview process must know what is (and is not) legally appropriate. A recent case here in New Jersey illustrates my frequently stated concerns about this neglected subject that should make all employers beware of job interviews!

On April 13, 2022, a jury in a New Jersey Superior Court matter, Corbin v. American Home Crafters Remodeling, awarded a Plaintiff $31,600 in damages in a Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) case for what can be rightly classified as her experiencing the “job interview from hell.” During that interview, a seemingly inebriated employee of Defendant made numerous improper statements about Plaintiff, ranging from odd comments about her high-heeled shoes to questioning whether her teenager children had been breast fed.  After Plaintiff was offered the job of administrative assistant, Plaintiff was handed a glass of whiskey to celebrate her hiring, which she drank and was then offered a second one. During that time, Plaintiff’s interviewer then began making numerous vulgar comments requesting that Plaintiff have sex with him. Prompted by concerns regarding the interviewer’s behavior the Plaintiff left.

Thereafter, the interviewer attempted multiple times to contact Plaintiff and convince her to not report his loathsome behavior. After speaking to Plaintiff’s husband and learning that Plaintiff had already filed a police report concerning his conduct, the interviewer emailed Plaintiff and rescinded the job offer stating that Plaintiff was not a “good fit for the job.”

In bringing her lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleged that the interviewer’s conduct was in violation of the LAD’s prohibitions regarding sexual harassment and retaliation. During the course of the trial, the entire interview was played to the jury because it had been videotaped on a company surveillance camera. 

In defense of the claim, the Defendant argued that since Plaintiff was not an employee, she could not be harassed in a job interview. The jury ultimately rejected this defense, and awarded both $8,400 in economic damages and $22,000 in emotional distress damages. Along with those significant damages, the court eventually awarded a whopping $138,190 in legal fees under the fee shifting section of the LAD that requires the reimbursement of a prevailing party’s legal fees. Ouch!

An extreme case example? Maybe? But it illustrates why employers must pay attention to this overlooked area where employers must ensure that they abide by legal rules that restrict what can and should not be done during a job interview. And the best way to eliminate these types of cases from occurring is training your employees on how to conduct job interviews. While a simple question asking a female candidate whether she has any children seems innocuous, it isn’t.  It could be construed by the candidate as a reflection of possible gender bias against her employment candidacy. There are numerous other similar questions like these that can seem harmless but in fact could be the precursor for potential legal action against both the employer and the interviewer. These kinds of traps for the unwary must be addressed by employers as part of regular training for all employees involved in the interview process so that you and your company can avoid a similar “interview from hell” scenario that can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in having to defend against a possible lawsuit like this one.

So, start paying attention to how your employees do job interviews, and educate them now on the Do’s and Don’ts of the process to minimize your potential for future legal problems in this often ignored area of employment law.              

Book Review Of “Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis”

For those readers who are interested in learning about current issues in workers’ compensation, I highly recommend the 2021 LexisNexis book entitled “Workers Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis.”  I was asked to review this book and found it to be chock full of cutting-edge articles written for attorneys, employers, physicians, adjusters, carriers and third party administrators.

The book consists of a collection of well-written articles by prominent authors from around the nation in the field of workers’ compensation law. A large portion of the book is devoted to COVID-19 pandemic issues ranging from how to analyze compensability of COVID-19 occupational disease claims, what presumptions really mean, and the impact of the pandemic on the traditional going-and-coming rule.  Among the most enlightening articles was one written by Michael C. Duff, Professor of Law at the University of Wyoming.  The author discusses how presumptions actually work in the law, comparing the specific language in presumption laws from various states, and focusing on how employers may attempt to rebut the statutory presumptions. 

In addition to the analysis on pandemic issues, there are also many other articles of interest to practitioners, including the impact of medical marijuana and opioid laws, understanding the AMA Guidelines in workers’ compensation, (used in most states but not in New Jersey), ride-sharing and the independent contractor defense, as well as a summary of state laws dealing with weekly limits on total disability in workers’ compensation.

One of the most impressive sections contained in this book is the state-by-state legislative and case law analysis.  For each state there is a section called “trends analysis” and a section that reviews cases of interest to practitioners and employers since 2020. I liked reading the developments in each state because it makes it easy to spot and track legal trends in workers’ compensation.  For attorneys, claims managers, supervisors and employers with business in several states, the book is absolutely essential. 

“Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis” was co-edited by Mr. Thomas Robinson, Esquire and the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network (NWCDN).  Mr. Robinson is the esteemed co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis) and Larson’s Workers’ Compensation, Desk Edition (LexisNexis).  The NWCDN is a nationwide network of independent law firms dedicated to promoting excellence in the practice of workers’ compensation law.  NWCDN runs some of the best seminars available to member practitioners and employers at various venues around the country.

As an avid reader of all things workers’ compensation, I enjoyed the fact that there was so much original thought in this book. The articles raise many questions that employers and practitioners will be trying to answer in the coming years. Frankly, anyone involved with workers’ compensation will benefit by reading this book.  For further information on this book, please click here.

The post Book Review Of “Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis” appeared first on NJ Workers' Comp Blog.

Capehart Blogs

Firm News
Capehart Scatchard Supports Oaks Integrated Care’s Rooted In Community Fundraiser
Firm News
Kenneth Chiarella Selected As A Fellow Of The National Filipino American Lawyers Association Leadership Academy
NJ School Law
Court Denies School District’s Motion to Compel IMEs

Court Denies School District’s Motion to Compel IMEs

Court Finds No Liability of Defendant Homeowner for Social Guest’s Fall Down Her Steps

Appellate Division Reinforces Strict Compliance With the “Notice Requirement” of the Tort Claims Act

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Categories

Tags
Alternative Energy Alternative Energy - Solar Alternative Energy - Wind Appellate Division automobile accident automobile insurance Burlington County Bar Association Cannabis Law Charity constructive notice coverage data security discovery dismissal Diversity & Inclusion Diversity & Inclusion Committee duty of care employees employers Employment Law evidence insurance Liability Litigation Litigation Quarterly Lorman Millennium Seminars NBI negligence New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act New York Law NJ Law notice Pennsylvania Law personal injury Public Entity Newsletter Real Estate and Land Use school law slip and fall statute of limitations summary judgment Tort Claims Act trip and fall Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Newsletter