.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

The Appellate Division affirms a Judge of Compensation’s decision to include the petitioner’s portion of attorneys’ fees and costs in the employer’s Section 40 lien.

Panckeri v. Allentown Police Dep’t, Docket No. A-2015-19, (Appellate Division, Decided Mar. 2, 2021)

May 1, 2021

by Kiara K. Hartwell

In this per curiam decision, the Appellate Division reviews Section 40 of the workers’ compensation statute. In enforcing a statutory lien, the Appellate Division agreed with the Judge of Compensation that the petitioner’s share of costs and fees should be included as a part of the subrogation calculation.

In April 2012, the petitioner was working as a police officer for the respondent and, while assisting at a motor vehicle accident, he injured his left foot. A claim was filed with the Division of Workers’ Compensation, and an order approving settlement was entered in January 2014 for 33 1/3% permanent partial disability of the statutory foot and $1,524 was assessed to the petitioner’s attorney for fees and costs.

Due to a worsening in his foot condition, the petitioner filed an application for review or modification of formal award. In March 2017, another order approving settlement was entered, increasing the award to 40% permanent partial disability of the statutory foot, and $844 was assessed to the petitioner’s attorney for fees and costs. Based on the two awards, the total amount of attorneys’ fees and costs was $2,368.

The petitioner also filed a lawsuit in the Law Division against the driver and owner of the vehicle who injured him. These claims were settled for $99,000, reduced $5,000 for his ex-wife’s per quod claim. The settlement was reduced by $30,693.39 in attorneys’ fees and $1,919.82 in expenses.

The respondent reserved its right to assert a lien against the petitioner’s recovery from the third party case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 (Section 40). The lien asserted totaled $53,717.28 for:

$16,547.13 in temporary disability benefits;

$16,287.05 in medical benefits;

$16,560.01 in permanency benefits for the January 2014 settlement; and

$4,323.09 in permanency benefits for the March 2017 settlement.

When the respondent asserted the $20,883.10 amount in total permanency benefits paid, the petitioner contested that the lien should not include the $2,368 in fees and costs paid. Specifically, the petitioner argued his share of fees and costs should not be included in the lien amount as it was not “recoverable monies” per the statute, whereas the respondent disputed that statutory interpretation and noted the “longstanding practice” of having the lien contain the gross amount of the award. After hearing arguments, the Judge of Compensation issued a written decision where the sole issue was “whether the [c]ourt must deduct [petitioner’s] share of fees and costs from the subrogation calculation.”

In rejecting the petitioner’s contention, the judge first cited another Appellate Division decision, Wager v. Burlington Elevators, Inc., 116 N.J. Super. 390, 395 (App. Div. 1971), where it was noted an employee was not entitled to double recovery. Further, the judge highlighted the notion that the employer’s subrogation rights are “statutorily created and generally attaches to ‘any sum’ recovered…” Lambert v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 447 N.J. Super 61, 73 (App. Div. 2016) (citing Primus v. Alfred Sanzari Enters., 372 N.J. Super. 392, 400 (App. Div. 2004)).

The judge relied on prior case law to find “benefit” under Section 40 equated to “overall recovery.” Additionally, it was noted that, while N.J.S.A. 34:15-40(e) specifically carved out an exception for the amount of fees and costs that could be deducted from a civil action, since the Act was silent for a workers’ compensation case, the judge declined to draw additional inferences from the plain language of the statute. Also, the judge mentioned that the Legislature would amend the statute if it believed a court misconstrued its intent. Finally, based on the fact that the Legislature only increased the deductible amount under Section 40 in its 2007 amendment, the judge reasoned that it concurred with the Division’s practice of including attorneys’ fees and costs. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the judge denied.

In affirming the judge’s decision, the Appellate Division heavily relied on the reasons articulated by the Judge of Compensation. The Appellate Division only added that the petitioner’s reliance on Kuhnel v. CNA Insurance Cos., 322 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 1999) was misplaced. Kuhnel did not address the petitioner’s share of fees and costs. Rather, the Appellate Division only focused on a respondent’s portion of fees and costs, noting expenses that benefit an employee should be included in a Section 40 lien. Moreover, in Kuhnel, the petitioner’s portion of fees and costs, among other things, were included in the employer’s Section 40 lien. Finally, the Appellate Division noted Kuhnel was decided eight years prior to the 2007 amendment of Section 40, in which there was no mention of a petitioner’s portion of fees and costs.

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, 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

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

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.

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. 

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

News

John J. Hare Featured in Pennsylvania & Delaware Super Lawyers Magazine