.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Legislation Update

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 10, October 2025

October 1, 2025

by Kiara K. Hartwell

Below are the more notable pending New Jersey workers’ compensation bills in the 2024-25 session, with 2025 updates in bold.

A1719 / S1883        Excludes Certain Illegal Aliens
This excludes certain illegal aliens from workers’ compensation and temporary disability benefits. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee.

A1732 / S1923    Prevent Intoxicated Employees from Workers’ Compensation
This prevents intoxicated employees from receiving workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee.

A1934 / S786        Reduce Statute of Limitations in Medical Fee Disputes
This reduces statute of limitations from six years to two years in medical fee disputes in workers’ compensation matters. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee.

A2100 / S1470        Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Certain Public Safety Workers Who Developed Illness or Injury as Result of Responding to September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks
This provides workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed illness or injury as result of responding to September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On September 19, 2024, it was reported out of with Amendments and referred to the Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee.

A2297        Coverage for Certain Injuries to Public Safety & Law Enforcement
This revises workers’ compensation coverage for certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee.

A2637 / S794        Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirements for Certain Corporations and Partnerships
This concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On December 5, 2024, it was reported from the Senate Committee as a Substitute, 2nd Reading.

A2771 / S2887        Maximum Benefits to Volunteers
This provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefits for workers’ compensation claim regardless of outside employment. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On March 4, 2024, it was also introduced to the Senate and referred to the Senate Labor Committee.

A4283        Personal Liability for Owner, Executive Officer, or Executive Director of Employer for Failure to Pay for Workers’ Compensation Coverage
This provides personal liability for owner, executive officer, or executive director of an employer for failure to pay for workers’ compensation coverage. It was introduced on May 6, 2024, to the Assembly Labor Committee.

A4371 / S1943        Requiring Coverage for Medical Cannabis Use
This requires workers’ compensation, PIP and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances. It was introduced on May 16, 2024, to the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee.

A5198 / S3772     Valuation of Board and Lodging with Respect to Workers’ Compensation
This concerns valuation of board and lodging with respect to workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 16, 2025, to the Assembly Labor Committee. On January 23, 2025, it was reported and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The Senate version was introduced on October 10, 2024, and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On December 5, 2024, there was a 2nd reading and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.

A5792 / S4590    Workers’ Compensation Coverage of Certain Counseling Services for First Responders and Provides that Certain Mental Health-Related Communications are Confidential
This provides for workers’ compensation coverage of certain counseling services for first responders and provides that certain mental health-related communications are confidential. It was introduced and referred on June 16, 2025, to the Assembly Labor Committee. On the same day, it was reported out of the Assembly Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading. On June 30, 2025, it was passed by the Assembly and received in the Senate without Reference, 2nd Reading. It was substituted for S4590 and passed in the Senate on the same day. It was approved on August 21, 2025.

S1565        Increase Mandatory Retirement Age
This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges and judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

S2278        Testimony in Workers’ Compensation
This concerns submission of testimony in workers’ compensation claims. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Senate Labor Committee.

S305 / A2507        Requires Administrative Law Judges to Be Enrolled in Workers’ 
Compensation Judges Part of PERS
This increases the statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges and judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on January 9, 2024, and referred to the Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee. On December 16, 2024, there was a 2nd reading and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. 

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 10, October 2025, 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 © 2025 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.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Takes Up the Gist of the Action Doctrine

The gist of the action doctrine has been a hot topic in legal malpractice cases in Pennsylvania over the last several years.  Beginning in 2014, the Pennsylvania courts applied the gist of the action doctrine to professional liability actions, following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion in Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014).  In Bruno, the court applied the gist of the action doctrine to a professional negligence claim, and found that a negligence claim was not barred simply because the parties were in a contractual relationship where the gist of the claim sounded in negligence. Thereafter, courts in Pennsylvania applied the gist of the action doctrine to breach of contract claims as well, finding that where the allegations sounded in negligence, a plaintiff could not recast a negligence claim as one for breach of contract. This was important because of the distinction between statutes of limitations: negligence claims must be brought within two (2) years, while breach of contract claims can be brought within four (4) years.  Then, last year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the gist of the action doctrine does not apply to breach of contract claims as seen through two opinions. These opinions were Swatt v. Nottingham Village, 342 A.3d 23 (Pa. Super. 2025) and Poteat v. Asteak, et al., 350 A.3d 198 (Pa. Super. 2025). That is, the gist of the action doctrine can bar a negligence claim but it cannot bar a breach of contract claim.  This month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the petition for allowance of appeal in Poteat.  The Supreme Court phrased the issue for consideration as follows: Whether the Superior Court majority’s holding conflicts with this Court’s holding in Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co., 160 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014), as well as Superior Court opinions that applied Bruno, and departs from almost 200 years of controlling precedent that distinguishes between causes of action in contract and tort based upon the nature of the duty that was allegedly breached? Attorneys on both sides of legal malpractice matters no doubt look forward to clarification on these issues from our Supreme Court.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

Delaware Superior Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for Legal Malpractice Claims

In the matter of Edelstein v. Kirschner, No. N25C-09-018 FJJ, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 45, at *1 (Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2026), the plaintiff law firm sued its former client for unpaid legal fees in the amount of $4,399.35. The former client asserted a counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. More, specifically, the former client claimed that his lawyer committed malpractice be recommending that he settle an underlying lawsuit by entering into a stipulated judgment for an excessive amount with interest that was accruing at “an outlandish” interest rate. The law firm moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that its former client had not alleged facts reflecting that he could prove the case within the case. That is, facts reflecting that his attorneys caused him to lose the underlying case. The Superior Court held that while a legal malpractice plaintiff in cases arising from underlying litigation must prove the case within the case to survive a summary judgment motion, he does not need to plead facts reflecting as much in order to survive a motion to dismiss. While this case addresses the pleading requirements of a legal malpractice case in Delaware, it also serves as reminder that chasing unpaid legal fees from a former client can often give rise to a legal malpractice counterclaim. Attorneys seeking to collect unpaid legal fees should ensure that the fees they seek are for a significant amount, which would be recoverable if a judgment is obtained. Otherwise, the effort could backfire.