Application of the Williams jurisdictional test: what is the standard for invoking jurisdiction of the New Jersey Division of Workers' Compensation in extraterritorial occupational disease cases?

The petitioner, a lifelong resident of Pennsylvania, was employed as a manual laborer in the printing industry in that state from 1974 through 2001. During that time, the petitioner performed different job functions for a variety of employers that required him to engage in strenuous physical activity, including climbing, bending, lifting, reaching, jumping, pushing and pulling. In September of 1995, the petitioner was hired by the respondent as a printing press operator. Until June 1, 2001, the petitioner’s place of work remained Pennsylvania. Thereafter, following the respondent’s move to New Jersey, the petitioner performed his duties as a printing press operator for the respondent in that state. The petitioner’s employment with the respondent in New Jersey lasted approximately sixteen months. In 1987, due to severe low-back pain, the petitioner underwent surgery of the lumbar spine including an L4-5 laminectomy and bilateral L5 foraminotomies. In 1996, the petitioner underwent an MRI of the cervical spine, which evidenced four moderate disc herniations. A 1997 MRI of the petitioner’s right-knee revealed degenerative joint disease and a torn meniscus. The petitioner soon thereafter underwent medial and lateral meniscectomies of the right-knee with chondral debridement. In September of 2002, the petitioner underwent surgery of the cervical spine, followed in May of 2003 by a right total knee arthroplasty. There is evidence that the petitioner was advised by a representative of the respondent in 1999 that he could have pursued a workers’ compensation claim relating to some or all of his conditions. Following the petitioner’s filing of a claim with the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation, the respondent moved for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In support of its motion, the respondent relied on Williams v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 175 N.J. 82 (2003). In Williams, the Supreme Court established a three-prong test which must be satisfied in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation in extraterritorial occupational disease cases: "[T]he petitioner must demonstrate either that (1) there was a period of work exposure in this State that was not insubstantial under the totality of the circumstances and given the nature of the injury; (2) the period of exposure was not substantial but the materials were highly toxic; or (3) the disease for which compensation is sought was obvious or disclosed “by medical examination, work incapacity, or manifest loss of function,” while working in New Jersey." In applying the Williams jurisdictional test, the judge of compensation found that the petitioner failed to establish that the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation had subject matter jurisdiction based upon his sixteen months of employment in New Jersey. As the judge of compensation stated, “[Petitioner’s] employment in New Jersey for respondent was de minimis and insubstantial taking into consideration . . . his employment history and preexisting medical findings.” Further, the judge of compensation found that the petitioner’s condition clearly manifested itself during his employment in Pennsylvania rather than in New Jersey and that the record was devoid of any medical evidence whatsoever that the petitioner’s sixteen months of employment in New Jersey “aggravated the already existing occupational condition derived from the more than [twenty-five] years of employment history in Pennsylvania.” Accordingly, the judge of compensation granted the respondent’s motion and dismissed the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner appealed. In affirming the judge of compensation’s ruling, the Appellate Division expressed apparent agreement with the judge of compensation’s characterization of the petitioner’s work exposure in New Jersey as “de minimis.” As the Appellate Division stated, “The judge of compensation rightly examined the totality of petitioner’s work experiences, dating back to 1974, and recognized that petitioner’s exposure must be measured using all similar job performances.” With regards to the issue of manifestation of the petitioner’s conditions, the Appellate Division found dispositive the fact that manifestation had occurred in Pennsylvania. As the Appellate Division commented: "[It was the judge of compensation’s] unassailable finding that manifestation of petitioner’s multiple conditions occurred long before he set foot in this state to operate a press for respondent. We find the record barren of competent evidence that petitioner’s employment thereafter actually contributed to or aggravated his multiple preexisting conditions." Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the petitioner did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation had subject matter jurisdiction based upon his sixteen months of exposure in New Jersey following his more than twenty-five years of previous exposure in Pennsylvania.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011