|
 View Article
June 23, 2003 1:13 PM
Workers’ Compensation News - May 23, 2003 Volume 1 Issue 11

Labor Calls Senator Hatch’s Asbestos Bill Too Weak ... 5/22/2003

National Consumer Awareness Campaign Launched on Vermiculite Insulation Used in Some Home Attics 5/21/2003

Misleading Statements Made By Vinyl Chloride Companies Held Valid Basis for Suit ... 5/18/2003

Paint makers’ O.K. to put warning stickers on cans is “an empty gesture that’s too little, too late” ... 5/18/2003

Medical Expenses Continue to Soar in Workers' Compensation Claims The National Council on Compensation ... 5/18/2003

September 11th Victims Compensation Fund Held Lawful and Valid US District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein ... 5/18/2003


For these stories and more visit www.gelmans.com

***
Crippen, etc. v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co., et al.,Supreme Ct. (Coleman, J.) (34 pp. -- including two separate concurring opinions by Justices Verniero and Zazzali, respectively) This appeal considers whether
an employer's failure to cure hazardous conditions, in violation of directives issued by OSHA, coupled with the employer's intentional deception of OSHA, constitutes an intentional wrong under the exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. The Court holds that summary judgment was improperly granted in favor of the defendant, since a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant had knowledge that its actions were substantially certain to result in the injury or death of one of its employees. [Companion case to 39-1-3770 and 39-1-3771 below.]

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-25-02.opn.html

Mull v. Zeta Consumer Products, et al., Supreme Ct.(Verniero, J.) (22 pp. -- including two separate concurring opinions by Justices Zazzali and
Albin, respectively) This appeal considers whether, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, a plaintiff is entitled to pursue a common-law remedy for work-related injuries sustained while she was employed by the defendant.
The Court holds that plaintiff's allegations, if proven, would satisfy the intentional wrong exception to
the immunity from common-law suit provided by N.J.'s Workers' Compensation Act, and she is entitled to proceed in the Law Division with the action she filed against her employer for injuries sustained on the job. [Companion case to 39-1-3769 above and 39-1-3771 below.]

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-3-02.opn.html

Tomeo, et ux. v. Thomas Whitesell Constr. Co., Inc., etc., et al., Supreme Ct. (Coleman, J.) (35 pp. -- including two separate dissenting opinions by Justices Zazzali and Albin, respectively) This appeal considers whether
the employer's deactivation of a safety lever on a snow blower, and its failure to train the employee in the snow blower's use, constituted an intentional wrong under the exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. The Court affirms the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court's decision in favor of the plaintiff; because plaintiff was injured by a consumer product, rather than a piece of
industrial production machinery, plaintiff's own conduct can be considered in analyzing whether immunity is afforded to the employer pursuant to N.J.S.A.
34:15-8. [Companion case to 39-1-3769 and 39-1-3770 above.]

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-5-02.opn.html

Email This Article     Print

Copyright 2021 by Jon Gelman, LLC - Attorney at Law. All rights reserved.   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use