Reading Room

During the 1993-1994 court term, the attention of the New Jersey Supreme Court was on evidential issues, while the Appellate Division addressed an entire spectrum of issues arising before the Division of Workers' Compensation. Those issues included conflict of law questions, further definition of the coming and going rule, and apportionment of traumatic and occupational disease claims [as well as issues of credibility. The court also addressed such perennially important issues as dependency benefits, the "fellow servant" rule, casual employment, and psychiatric illness]. The court term marked further reiteration by the reviewing tribunals that permanent disability can be recognized at minimal levels and that a cause of action exists for an occupationally-induced cardiovascular condition.

The 1992-93 court term produced a group of decisions that focused on novel issues now being presented before the Division of Workers' Compensation. Judicial forums had an opportunity to review many aspects of the law, including employment status, psychiatric disability, apportionment of disability in traumatic disease claims among multiple respondents, [the "safety net," the "coming and going rule," liens, the scope of spousal dependency, evidential concerns,] and the scope of the availability of a pension offset for employees of interstate agencies. 

The 1988-1989 court term has resulted in significant developments in the New Jersey Division of Workers' Compensation. The court has continued to define the scope of employment and the parameters under which remedies are available for the injured employee under the Workers' Compensation Act. It confirmed the right of employees to obtain relief from employers where fraudulent concealment is an issue. 

NJ Supreme Court Case Review 1988. Substantial and significant case law development and procedural changes have occurred before the Division of Workers' Compensation during the 1987-1988 court term. Decisions have focused on interpreting the 1979 Amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act in light of the increasing complexities of the industrial arena.

In an era of heightened technological sophistication, the Division of Workers' Compensation is increasingly faced with the necessity to apportion responsibility among successive employers or insurance carriers when dealing with occupational disease claims.