Reading Room

Occupational lead exposure, especially to lead paint, has been a well-known hazard in the workplace you decades. Recent epidemiological studies demonstrate the causal relationship between exposure to impaired brain function, over time, in adults resulting in early aging. Employers and insurance carriers should brace themselves for a wave of claims.

Medical expenses in contested workers’ compensation cases are now a significant and troublesome issue resulting in uncertainty, delay, and potential future liability: the recent NJ Supreme Court decision, University of Mass. Memorial Hospital v. Christodoulou, 180 N.J. 334 (2004) has left the question of how to adjudicate medical benefits that were conditionally paid or paid in error. Presently there is no exclusively defined procedure to determine the allocation and apportionment of primary responsibility for unauthorized medical expenses and reimbursement.

Statement of Jon L. Gelman Attorney at Law Before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on the Fairness in Asbestos Resolution Act of 2005 January 11, 2005.

Compensability for occupational diseases has become commonplace in most, if not all, jurisdictions throughout the country; however, most claims filed allege physical rather than mental disability. The California Workers' Compensation Institute recently published its study of mental stress claims which indicated an increase of 430 percent in the number of claims filed from 1980 to 1986. 

The delivery of medical benefits to injured workers is becoming more costly and difficult to administer. The purpose of this article is to report developing trends in the United States in the delivery of medical benefits for injured workers.

For the last few decades, the most compelling issue in an occupational disease case has been how the workers’ compensation court should determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently established guidelines for the admission and reliance upon such proof.

How to put together the puzzle of proof in an occupational disease claim.

Workers who take home toxic substances and infectious diseases can pose a significant risk to their households and other family members. These workers may come into contact with harmful chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants on the job, and without proper precautions, they can bring these toxins into their homes and expose their loved ones to dangerous health hazards.

A unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court decided that firefighters, whether paid or volunteer, may receive Workers’ Compensation benefits for developing respiratory illness and lung disease as a result of exposure to asbestos, fumes and other toxic substances encountered on the job. Decided February 11, 2002, the case of Culbert vs. City of Jersey City and its companion Lindquist vs. City of Jersey City, reversed the Judgment of the Appellate Division, which threw out the firefighter’s claims.

Many occupations and lifestyles have a history of exposure to high levels of asbestos fiber. If you have engaged in one or more of the following occupations, you may wish to discuss this exposure with your physician.