Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a workers' compensation attorney, Angela focuses the entirety of her practice on New Jersey workers’ compensation, representing the interests of employers, carriers and self-insureds. Throughout her career, Angela has gained significant experience handling claims involving issues of employment, coverage, compensability, causation/liability and permanency. Her cases also include specific issues of total disability (SIF), lack of coverage (UEF) and subcontractor/general contractor issues (Section 79).
Notably, Angela has argued multiple cases before the Appellate Division. She has secured favorable decisions on issues of entitlement to temporary total disability benefits addressed under Section 38 (commonly referred to as the Cunningham issue). Her experience also extends to issues involving jurisdiction and liability against a subsequent carrier (most often referred to as a Peterson or Bond-type issue).
In addition to her legal speaking engagements, Angela is actively involved with youth activities in her community. She participates in career day programs at the elementary and high school levels and devotes time to youth mentoring and motivation.
Prior to her career in law, Angela worked as a probation officer and as an advocate for victims of domestic violence.
Results
Medical provider claim petition dismissed, with prejudice.
The parties were litigating a motion for medical treatment in which a physician was recommending an additional spinal surgery. The physician moved forward without authorization and performed spinal surgery on the petitioner. In order to complete the surgery, the physician brought in several ancillary services, including a vendor to perform diagnostic monitoring during the surgery. Following the surgery, the medical provider submitted its bills to the carrier, which were rejected based upon the lack of authorization. After a medical provider claim petition was filed, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the matter for failure to obtain the requisite statutory authorization. The medical provider argued that it was only providing ancillary services and, therefore, did not require the authorization of the carrier under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Statute. The medical provider also argued that they were the “victim” since they were advised by the physician that the procedure was authorized. The judge rejected both arguments, holding that all medical providers including providers that provide ancillary services for surgical procedures, are required to obtain the same authorization for their treatment, or risk not receiving financial reimbursement.
Workers’ comp claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and coverage for an occupational accident policy carrier.
The petitioner filed a claim petition within the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation seeking benefits and alleging employment with a trucking company. However, the petitioner had previously obtained an occupational accident policy in the role of an independent contractor. When filing the workers’ compensation petition, counsel for the petitioner erroneously named the occupational accident policy carrier as carrier for the trucking company. Although it would appear clear that jurisdiction and coverage do not exist in such cases, most times it is a lengthy process to have such matters addressed by the court and ultimately dismissed. In this case, we were successful in obtaining the dismissal and ceasing further unnecessary financial costs to the client.
Thought Leadership
Defense Digest
Celebrating 30 Years of the Defense Digest: A Look at the Last 30 Years in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation
December 1, 2024
Key Points: The term “palliative” is not decisive as to liability to provide treatment. When addressing requests for temporary total disability benefits from former employees, investigate entitlement beyond a doctor’s note changing work status. There are exclusions to the general principle that injuries during volunteering activities are not compensable. Thinking back to 1994—30 years ago—many of us may not recall where we were or what we were doing. In fact, many readers may not have even been born at the time. However, the celebration of 30 years of Marshall Dennehey’s publication of Defense Digest provides a good opportunity to review a few significant New Jersey workers’ compensation judicial decisions from the last three decades that still impact claims handling today. This article will focus on one decision from each decade. 1994–2004 The first decade, 1994–2004, brought the world such noteworthy events as the debut of the television show “Friends” (1994), the election of Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa (1994), and the unforgettable events of September 11, 2001. The decade also brought a notable New Jersey Appellate Division decision that still raises issues for practitioners today. In 1995, the Appellate Division analyzed the term “palliative” with regard to a respondent’s liability to provide medical treatment. In Hanrahan v. Township of Sparta, 284 N.J. Super. 327 (App. Div. 1995), the court held that an employer is required to provide such treatment if there is (1) competent medical testimony that (2) the treatment is both reasonable and necessary to (3) cure or relieve the effect of the work-related injury such as to improve ability to function. Prior to that time, defense counsel would use “palliative” as an indicator to cease liability. Per this decision, that is not the legal analysis. However, according to the court, “palliative” treatment could cease if it is no longer curing or relieving the effect of the work-related injury to improve one’s ability to function. Therefore, a practitioner should determine whether these requirements apply when addressing this issue. 2004–2014 The next decade, 2004–2014, brought about additional significant events. The world was introduced to Facebook (2004) and saw the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States (2009). This decade also included the death of music icon Michael Jackson (2009). In addition to these events, this decade brought about important judicial decisions in New Jersey workers’ compensation. Next, we will take a look at one of them. In 2006, the Appellate Division addressed the issue of entitlement to temporary total disability benefits when an injured worker is terminated from employment for reasons unrelated to the work-related injuries and is, thereafter, placed out of work or on modified duty status by the medical doctor. In Cunningham v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 386 N.J. Super. 423 (App. Div. 2006), the court held that a former employee has the burden of proving that they would have been employed “but for” the work-related disability in order to receive temporary disability benefits. In other words, the work-related disability has to be the reason for the unemployment, not something else. It is important for practitioners to ask additional questions when a former employee is placed out of work or on modified-duty status following termination. Specifically, practitioners should inquire whether there was any active employment elsewhere, receipt of unemployment benefits, or proof of an active search for employment at the time of the medical change-in-work status. If the lack of employment was due to some other reason (i.e., simply had not sought employment since termination of employment or personal reasons unrelated to the work injury), there would be an argument that temporary total disability benefits are not due. Thorough investigation is key. 2014—2024 Lastly, 2014–2024. During this period, the world witnessed the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (2018) and continues to be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (2020). In New Jersey, Chief Judge Maria Del Valle Koch was appointed as the first woman Director and Chief Judge of the Division of Workers’ Compensation (2022). In addition to these events, there continues to be important legal decisions. Of those, we will take a look at one New Jersey Supreme Court decision. In 2021, the court analyzed the compensability issue related to employee volunteers in Goulding v. NJ Friendship House, Inc., 245 N.J. 157 (2021). The court reiterated that an injury is compensable where there was compulsion by the employer for the employee to volunteer and that injuries during purely social or recreational events are not compensable. The court also reviewed the two-prong test used in analyzing the compensability issue for employees volunteering at employer-sponsored events: (1) whether the injury was a “regular incident of employment” and (2) whether the event provided a benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale. When encountering this issue, practitioners should apply the two-prong test to the facts of the claim to determine if it is met. Analysis is very fact sensitive. As such, it is worthwhile to conduct a thorough investigation. The review of these decisions shows that, although a decision may have been rendered many years ago, it is necessary to be aware of it as it may continue to impact claims handling today. These decisions and analyses can influence your decision as to whether to provide compensation. Defense Digest will continue to be a source of information on legal trends, cases, and updates in the law. *Angela is a shareholder and member of our Workers’ Compensation Department. She works in our Mount Laurel, New Jersey, office. Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
The New Jersey Appellate Court affirms finding of compensability under Special Mission exception of Coming and Going Rule even though the petitioner sustained severe injuries as a result of his own actions in violation of company policy.
March 1, 2023
The petitioner sustained severe injuries, including loss of the use of an eye, brain trauma and burns, as a result of a B-Tank/gas tank explosion. One issue of contention was that the petitioner had personally placed the B-Tank in his personal vehicle at the end of a workday with the intention of delivering the tank to a customer the following day on his way to work. It was undisputed that the petitioner’s actions violated company and union policies and that he had received training that included notice of the prohibition of using one’s personal vehicle for work and that B-Tanks are not to be stored in confined spaces. Also, it was undisputed that the petitioner was acting on his own accord and not at the direction or assignment of the respondent. Despite the training and policies, the petitioner loaded the tank in his personal vehicle anyway. While on the way to work the following day, the petitioner received a text from a superior in the company, though not his direct supervisor, asking that he pick him up and take him to work. It was while the petitioner was on the way to pick up this individual that he heard a hissing sound in his car. At that point, he remembered he had placed the gas tank in his car but had forgotten to deliver it to the customer. Also, the petitioner had passed the customer’s location. The petitioner “stopped on the side of the road, opened all the windows, got out of his car, and went to the rear of his vehicle. As petitioner opened the hatch of his vehicle, the B-Tank exploded.” Following a trial on the petitioner’s motion for medical and/or temporary disability benefits, the Judge of Compensation held the incident to be compensable. The judge held that the “special mission” exception applied, finding that: (1) the petitioner had “embarked upon a special mission of delivering the B-Tank to the customer and that mission had not ended” before the accident and (2) the petitioner was engaged in a special mission for the respondent when he was driving to pick up the higher-up in the company. The respondent appealed. The Appellate Court heard the matter and affirmed the lower court’s decision. It is noted that the respondent made the following arguments, which were rejected by the Appellate Court: 1. the petitioner’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment; 2. the legal determinations made by the judge were not supported by the facts; 3. the petitioner was not injured while engaged in a special mission as he was not asked to deliver the B-Tank outside of work hours or in his personal vehicle, in violation of policies and training, and the petitioner could have refused to pick up the higher-up that morning; 4. the petitioner should be precluded from receiving benefits as he had engaged in reckless and unreasonable behavior by placing the B-Tank in his personal vehicle; and 5. the claim was not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act due to the petitioner’s willful failure to make use of reasonable and proper personal protective devices. It is noted that the respondent raised the final argument for the first time at appellate level. In rejecting those arguments, the Appellate Court found that there existed substantial, credible evidence supporting the judge’s finding that the petitioner was on a special mission for the respondent when he was en route to pick up the higher-up. With that finding, the Appellate Court indicated that it was not necessary to address whether the petitioner was also on a special mission to deliver the B-Tank to the customer. Specifically, the court concentrated on the fact that the petitioner was en route to pick up someone in a high level of authority for the respondent, at the request of that individual, when the incident occurred. The court also focused on the fact that it was during this commute that the tank exploded. The court affirmed the judge’s finding that the petitioner was performing a “special mission” at the time of the explosion, thus, making the incident compensable. Although the court indicated that it was not addressing the petitioner’s actions in placing the tank into his personal vehicle against policy and training, it did comment that negligence or a foolhardy action by a petitioner does not necessarily remove an incident from the realm of compensability, hinting that compensability still would have been found. What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 3, March 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
