Home | NJ Workers' Compensation Lawyer, John F. Renner |  Workers' Compensation Resource Center | Contact Us

Work Injury Insights from JFR
 

John F. Renner, P.C.                                     856.596.8000

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law

The New Jersey Workers’ Compensation law is complex and can be a trap for the unwary.   I guide my clients through the legal process every step of the way.   My clients are informed and educated about the system, how long their case may take and the potential risks and benefits involved at every stage of their workers' comp litigation.  I am dedicated to the aggressive pursuit of the full range of benefits allowed including medical treatment, lost wages and a permanency award.   

A New Jersey Lawyer Who Takes Time to Listen

Your case is unique and important.  I customize the advice I give to each client based upon that person’s unique circumstances.  I also bring to the table for each client all my knowledge, skill and ability.  Understanding your particular needs is a very important part of how I deliver quality legal representation.  Personalized service and attention takes time but the resulting benefits are worth the effort both in client satisfaction and case results.   

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Resource Center

I have compiled worker's compensation resources for New Jersey from the internet as a source of general information to help you better understand the complex system of laws governing the resolution of a work injury case. To compliment those resources, I also post weekly blogs -- or New Jersey Work Injury Insights -- on timely workers compensation issues and law.

I also provide general information on three primary benefits available under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law, specifically:

Wage Benefits - Temporary compensation;

Medical Benefits;

Permanency Benefits.

NJ Work Injury Insights from JFR

Fackelman v. Lac d’Amiante du Quebec, 398 N.J. Super. 474 (App. Div. 2008)

Holding: A workers’ compensation insurer that performs industrial hygiene studies for a plaintiff’s employer owes no duty to educate and warn employees of any danger.

            Plaintiff commenced an action against Aetna, among others, after discovering in 2002 that he had asbestosis as a result of being exposed to asbestos while employed at the Berlin facility of Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation. Aetna, as a workers’ compensation insurer, performed various air sample surveys, industrial hygiene studies, and special hazard studies at the Berlin plant and met with Owens Corning representatives to review the results and to prompt Owens Corning to reduce high exposure levels and contain dust in the plant. Aetna did not inform individual employees of the test results. Plaintiff argued that Aetna was liable to him because it undertook to perform industrial hygiene surveys which were necessary for the protection of employees and it failed to warn the employees of elevated dust levels or to educate them on measures to avoid or to minimize the danger caused by the substances to which they were exposed. The trial court granted summary judgment for Aetna and plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed.  New Jersey work injury lawyers review the holding that an insurer who performs industrial hygiene studies for an employer does not have a duty to educate and warn employees of any danger.  New Jersey workers compensation lawyers further review the court’s explanation that the precise issue on appeal had been raised in other cases and had been decided in favor of the insurer in each instance. There was no basis to depart from that well-settled New Jersey law, which was consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, governing liability of third parties for negligent performance of an undertaking. That section states that one who undertakes to render services “which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person” is liable to the third person for harm “resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care” if (a) that failure increases the risk of such harm, (b) “he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person,” or (c) “the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.” In affirming, NJ work injury attorney John F. Renner understands that the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that liability should have been imposed on Aetna because it assumed the duty of the employer to provide a safe place to work, as well as the argument that plaintiff and other employees reasonably relied on Aetna to communicate to them the known dangers in their work environment. Consistent with New Jersey law, the court held that the factual record provided no basis for recovery by plaintiff against Aetna.

The court similarly found no validity to either plaintiff’s argument that ordinary principles of tort liability supported the recognition of a duty by Aetna to reduce the risks of harm at the Berlin facility and to warn the employees directly of those risks or his argument that he was a third-party beneficiary of the contractual relationship between Aetna and his employer.

NEW JERSEY WORK ACCIDENT LAWYERS CONSIDER MEDICAL BENEFITS PROVISION OF THE NEW JERSEY WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT TO PROVIDE NECESSARY AND REASONABLE MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR INJURED EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE ACT.

According to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15: “an employer shall furnish such medical, surgical and other treatment and hospital service as shall be necessary to cure and relieve the worker of the effects of the injury and to restore the functions of the injured member or organ where such restoration is possible.”   As such, New Jersey work injury employees who cannot medically have the reduced function of the member or organ restored are entitled to permanency benefits. 

According to the New Jersey statute, if the employer refuses or neglects to provide medical treatment, the work injury employee may secure such treatment and the employer will become liable for the payment, provided that the employee requested the employer to furnish the treatment and the employer refused or neglected to do so, or, unless notification is impossible due to the nature of the injury or the circumstances where so peculiar as to justify.  

Case law interpreting the statute has held that as long as there is competent medical evidence and the treatment is reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the injury, there may be the necessity for continuing medical treatment if the function of the member or organ is thereby increased. 

Burlington County Location:
12000 Lincoln Drive West
Suite 401
Marlton, NJ 08053

Camden County Location:
111 White Horse Pike
Haddon Hts., NJ 08035

Are you an injured worker?
Contact our office to discuss your case.   If we accept your matter, rest assured you will receive professional legal representation.  We stand up for our clients to secure them the full New Jersey Workers’ Compensation benefits available under the law. 

Contact | SiteMap

New Jersey Lawyer, Copyright © 2008 - Present. All rights reserved - JFR
Voted Best of New Jersey Lawyers in South Jersey

Another New Jersey internet marketing SEO Design by AJIS.com