Janeth McFarlane worked at the Baptist Hospital in Florida for approximately two years prior to November 1, 1996. She had used latex powdered gloves. Her employer had ordered, but had not received, powder-less gloves. During her employment she did experience some respiratory difficulty but was unaware of the cause. On November 1, 1996, immediately after using latex powdered gloves, she went into respiratory failure. Her co-workers attempted to revive her but were unsuccessful. 

The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has followed the theory adopted in a majority of jurisdictions that each discrete reaction to latex products constitutes a separate injury. Even though the worker may have suffered a reaction based upon a cumulative exposure to latex at many employments, the responsibility for compensating the injured worker falls upon the employer where the reaction in question occurred. Evans v. Phoebe Berks Health Care Cr., A98-3954 (Pa.Work.Comp.App.Bd. 2000), decided Feb. 1, 2000. 

In a landmark case, the Iowa Supreme Court decided that latex allergy/sensitivity claims are to be considered work related accidents rather than occupational diseases and that sensitized workers are entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits including those for loss of functional ability. The Court's decision to pinpoint the reaction to a specific event rather than to a long period of occupational exposure will make it easier, less complicated, and less costly for injured workers to claim benefits.  

 Latex allergy sensitivity claims are becoming a more common phenomenon in workers’ compensation systems throughout the United States. Causal relationship between latex exposure and allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock, has led to the reporting of 23 deaths to the Federal Drug Administration between 1988 and 1995. Although most commonly associated with latex gloves, natural latex rubber is used in more than 40,000 medical, surgical and household products. 

 The battlefield for the assault on state workers’ compensation programs has shifted from the state capitals to the halls of Congress. Industry and their insurers are now shifting gears from an attempt at tinkering with individual systems to a more generalized approach, where assets and energies can be concentrated uniformly through Federal modification of globalized issues that will place into jeopardy the rights of workers and significantly hamper the efforts of their attorneys in seeking recovery under state workers’ compensation systems. 

 The NJ Supreme Court confirmed that dependents have a separate claim and may file for benefits if the injured worker dies of a work-related disease. In allowing dependents to file their own claims for benefits as a result of a workers' death, the Court confirmed the liberal intent of the law.

The state Supreme Court last Thursday ruled that workers claiming occupational heart disease need only show that their job substantially contributed to the development of the disease to be awarded compensation. But in the first ruling of its kind in the country, the Court specifically held that smokers can be denied compensation if a job-related disease is principally caused by personal-risk factors such as smoking, obesity or a family history of the illness. 

The ever increasing desire of industry to contain costs in the medical management arena, as well as to gather information about current employees and new hires, and the technological realities of the millenium are now creating new battle lines for workers over the privacy of their medical, genetic, and other personal records. Computers make it easier to store, collect, share and analyze all kinds of data. The attempt to formulate intervention in this arena has placed both federal and state governments as contenders in the management of the confrontation, which may ultimately affect the employment status of every worker in the nation.

Over the course of the last few years the United States economy has undergone radical change that will require New Jersey industry to reevaluate the manner in which it conducts business. New Jersey’s robust economy is reflective of a national trend towards full employment, but its workers’ compensation benefits have not kept pace with other states. 

 NJ Supreme Court Case Review. The New Jersey Supreme Court, struggling to maintain the social remedial aspects of the Workers’ Compensation Act, adopted a liberal “quantification of disability” rule to determine the Statute of Limitations date to be utilized in occupational disease claims.This approach is in stark contrast to the Court’s conservative interpretation “notice” requirement that it had enunciated in Brock v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 149 N.J. 378 (1997). 

The consensus that usually prevails when the New Jersey Supreme Court decides workers’ compensation claims was shattered this term when the Court dealt with an issue that could affect the ongoing school funding controversy. Justice O’Hern, writing for the majority of the Court in Outland v. Monmouth-Ocean Education Service Commission, No. A-48-97, 1998 WL 387263 (N.J. July 1, 1998) determined that a teacher who was employed under a ten-month contract and who was injured during the school year was entitled to temporary compensation benefits during the summer recess period. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled that claims of workplace sexual harassment, when the harassment results in bodily injury, could not be excluded by insurance carriers under the employer's liability section of a workers' compensation policy. Lisa Schmidt filed a claim against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. and against the president of the company, Dennis Smith, for sexual harassment in violation of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD), assault, battery, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

In reviewing numerous medical records, including orthopedic and physical therapy reports, it is common to find mention of "The Waddell Test" and extensive reporting of examination findings featuring the results of its component maneuvers. These comments, will review the testing as it was originally described in its proper clinical application. Finally, some insights that can be used in formulating cross examination of expert witnesses who feature the Waddell test in their testimony will be discussed.

In a decision that focuses attention on the risk of harm to reproductive systems caused by exposure to toxins in the workplace, a state appeals court has ordered a judge to award compensation to an industrial employee for sterility, even though the condition did not affect his ability to work. Workers’ Compensation Judge Melvin Shteir had ruled that Ahmed Akef, a chemical worker at a BASF Corp. plant in Middlesex County, suffered no loss "in the workers’ compensation sense."  

In a decision that focuses attention on the risk of harm to reproductive systems caused by exposure to toxins in the workplace, a state appeals court ...

 The Trustees of the Manville Personal Injury Trust and H.K. Porter Co. targeted the tobacco industry in two separate lawsuits demanding contribu...

 This was the year that the Court mandated that workers’ compensation actions must comply with specific evidentiary and jurisdictional standards....

 
This was the year that the Court mandated that workers’ compensation actions must comply with specific evidentiary and jurisdictional standards. In a series of cases, the New Jersey Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of strict adherence to the requirements of the Law to those practicing before the Division of Workers’ Compensation. 

The NJ Supreme Court has ruled that employees have 90 days to notify their employers after the diagnosis of an occupational disease. If the employee fails to notify his employer, a claim for workers’ compensation benefits may be barred.  

The State of New Jersey recently adopted new Administrative Rules which appear to be the most sweeping reform of the NJ Workers' Compensation system in the last 17 tears. The rules address substantive and procedural aspects that may result in a detrimental effect upon the rights of many litigants. The Rules were adopted on March 3, 1997 with the support of business and the insurance company lobbying teams.