Workers Comp Case Law

(Periodically Updated)

• Worker is entitled to benefits unless intoxication is the sole cause of the accident.
  See Below – Tlumac v. High Bridge Stone


• Injured person is an employee, not an independent contractor, and is therefore entitled to benefits.
  See Below – Luis Rosado v. Crescenzi and Son Concrete, Inc.


• Injured Worker is entitled to benefits even though he deviated from job duties.
  See Below – Jose Valdez v. Tri-State Furniture


• Injured worker is entitled to benefits even though injury occurred wile driving home from work site.
  See Below – Joseph Sprigg v. Telesource Corporation


• Injured worker is entitled to benefits if work exposure contributes to the underlying disease to a “material degree”.
  See Below – Richard Lindquist v. City of Jersey City Fire Department

Tlumac v. High Bridge Stone
187 NJ 567 (2006)

In this matter the injured worker was a truck driver who became involved in a motor vehicle accident. The employer denied the case using the intoxication defense. They produced expert testimony indicating that, at the time of the accident, the injured worker’s blood alcohol level was approximately 0.15. The injured worker did not dispute this finding. However, he asserted that he fell asleep at the wheel just prior to the accident. He indicated that this was because he was tired as a result of a very busy work schedule and extra home duties required as a result of his wife’s illness. He produced testimony indicating in the 12 days prior to the accident he worked 230 hours and, with the added responsibility of taking care of his wife, received very little sleep.

The New Jersey Workers Compensation Statute indicates that for an employer to successfully use the intoxication defense they must show that the intoxication was the sole cause of the work accident. Here the Court indicated that intoxication may have been one of the causes, indeed it may have been a primary cause, but could not rule that intoxication was the sole cause of the accident. The Court could not discount the fact that the injured workers difficult schedule leading up to the accident contributed to the occurrence of the accident. For that reason, the Court found that the accident was compensable under New Jersey Workers Compensation Law and awarded benefits to the injured worker.

Back to Top

Luis Rosado v. Crescenzi and Son Concrete, Inc.
Non-Reported (2006)

In this matter the worker was injured when he fell through a roof onto a concrete floor in a building that was being demolished by his alleged employer. The injured work sought benefits under the New Jersey Workers Compensation Statute. The alleged employer denied these benefits, asserting that the injured worker was not an employee, but rather was an independent contractor.

At trial the Court applied the two tests that relate to the employee/independent contractor controversy. The first is the “Right to Control” test. According to this test the employer must have the right to direct the worker in the functioning of the job. Here the Court found that the employer assigned and supervised all tasks performed by the worker. The second test in the “Relative Nature of the Work” test. This test has two parts. The work being performed by the injured individual must be integral to the employer’s business and the worker must have substantial financial dependence upon the employer. Here the Court found that one of the company’s main purposes was to abolish buildings and that the worker was injured while abolishing a business. It also found that the workers full income was derived from work with the employer. The injured worker needed to satisfy only one of these tests to be considered an employee and therefore eligible for New Jersey Workers Compensation Benefits. Nonetheless, the Court determined that the injured worker satisfied both tests. It therefore determined that he was an employee and awarded benefits to him.

It is important to note that the landmark case dealing with the independent contractor/employee issue is a trucking case. In that matter the truck used by the injured worker was leased by him and there was a specific written agreement between the employer and the worker conceding that the worker was an independent contractor. Nonetheless, the Court determined that the truck driver was an employee and awarded him New Jersey Compensation Benefits.

Back to Top

Jose Valdez v. Tri-State Furniture
374 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div. 2005)

In this matter the injured worker was employed by a furniture repair company. That company shared warehouse space with a major furniture department store. On the date of the accident the injured worker and a supervisor were working overtime to build an office within their company’s warehouse space. They were the only two people at the facility. When the job was mostly completed the injured worker and his supervisor decided to go for a ride on nearby forklifts. The forklifts were owned by the furniture department store (the other company) and in that company’s warehouse space. While riding the forklift the worker got into an accident, causing severe injuries. He sought New Jersey Workers Compensation Benefits. The employer denied these benefits, asserting that the injury did not arise out of and the course of the injured workers employment.

The trial judge ruled in favor of the employer, and denied benefits to the injured worker. However, the Appellate Division overturned this decision in favor of the injured worker. In doing so, the Appellate Division noted that at the time of the accident the injured worker was still “on the clock” and in the presence of his supervisor. They also noted that there were certain times during which employee’s of the injured worker’s company would drive forklifts and that the area separating the two companies’ work space was not clearly defined. More importantly, the Court found that “Accidents that result from minor deviations or an employee’s curiosity about his work environment are still compensable”.

Back to Top

Joseph Sprigg v. Telesource Corporation
Non-Reported (2005)

In this matter the injured worker was an Installation Technician working for a major telecommunications company. His job required him to travel to different sites and install electrical equipment. He was given a company vehicle and reimbursed for gas and tolls. On the date of the accident he completed his normal shift. He was then given an emergency assignment. He went home for dinner and then left his home at approximately 9:30PM to get to the new job site. He arrived at the job site at 11:00PM; worked until 4:00AM; then was required to stay an extra 2 hours to complete a full overtime shift. On his way home from this job the worker fell asleep behind the wheel and became involved in a motor vehicle accident. He sought workers compensation benefits, which were denied by his employer.

In deciding this case, the Court recognized that normally travel time to and from work is not considered to be part of the work day and injuries that occur during those times are not compensable. However, the Court also noted two exceptions to this rule. One is the “Special Mission” exception. This exception allows compensation to injured workers during travel time when they are involved in accidents away from their conventional place of employment and actually engaged in their work duties. The second exception is the “Travel Time” exception. This allows door to door coverage for injured workers involved in accidents during travel time in an employer authorized vehicle to a distant job site. Under either theory, the Court determined that this injury was work related and awarded the injured worker New Jersey Workers Compensation benefits.

Back to Top

Richard Lindquist v. City of Jersey City Fire Department
175 NJ 244 (2003)

In this matter a full time firefighter brought an occupational exposure claim against his employer. He alleged that exposure to dust, smoke and other noxious gases over a 25 year employment caused him to sustain emphysema. The employer denied the claim. In doing so, they produced medical testimony indicating that there was no medical evidence showing that the type of exposure alleged by the firefighter could cause emphysema. The employer’s medical expert attributed the emphysema to the firefighter’s history of cigarette smoking.

The Appellate Court ruled in favor of the firefighter. In doing so, the judges found that although there are no specific scientific tests conclusively relating emphysema to acute smoke exposure, it is well known that this type of exposure can harm the lungs. The Appellate Court also ruled the firefighter did not need to prove that his work was the major cause of his emphysema. He needed only to show that the work exposure contributed to a material degree to the development of this disease.

Back to Top