Kiara K. Hartwell

In this case, the Appellate Division vacated the November 8, 2019, order dismissing the petitioner’s application for review or modification of an award and remanded to the lower court. 

On April 15, 2003, the petitioner, an employee of the State, injured his right leg while at work. After authorized treatment, a judgment for settlement was entered in September 2008. The petitioner subsequently underwent additional treatment through February 1, 2012. On July 24, 2019, he filed an application for review or modification of the award to the 2003 incident, and in its answer, the State noted it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations period. The workers’ compensation court considered this to be the State’s motion to dismiss, which the petitioner opposed. The petitioner argued the judge should relax this time period in the interest of justice, re-open the 2003 claim due to mistake or other good cause, and/or amend his 2013 claim to include the 2003 injuries.

In 2010, the petitioner had multiple other claims, including one for a 2000 incident involving his left knee. That claim was settled in 2005, re-opened in 2007, and settled again in 2009. He noted that he sought treatment for both his knees and the State provided treatment without him filing applications for review or modification on either claim. He obtained a left knee replacement in October 2010 and a right knee replacement two months later.

Per the petitioner, he received additional treatment for both the 2000 and 2003 claims under the 2000 claim petition at the direction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation. He argued that by doing so, his attorney believed both claims would be treated as one going forward. The petitioner also noted that Horizon Casualty Services, the insurer for the State, assigned one claim number for both of these incidents.

In November 2013, the petitioner filed an application for review or modification of the 2000 claim petition, anticipating that it would apply to both the 2000 and 2003 claims, though the dates on that application only referred to the 2000 claim. The petitioner also submitted two memos by his attorney—the first in September 2018, noting Horizon was only using one claim number for both claims, and the second in January 2018, noting a representative of the Division advised that the 2003 claim was open via phone call. Three months after, a Division investigator informed petitioner’s attorney that the 2003 claim was closed.

An oral opinion was issued by the Judge of Compensation granting the State’s motion and finding that the July 24, 2019, application was filed more than seven years after the final benefit on February 1, 2012. The petitioner appealed, arguing the judge erred in failing to exercise her authority to correct his attorney’s mistake by re-opening the 2003 claim or amending the November 2013 application to include the 2003 claim.

Although the Appellate Division acknowledged the two-year statute of limitations to reopen a claim, it also delved into exceptions, including the exception to correct a mistake, as in Hyman v. Essex Cty. Carpet Cleaning Co., 157 N.J. Super. 510 (App. Div. 1978), or an omission, as in Camp v. Lockheed Elec., Inc., 178 N.J. Super. 535 (App. Div. 1981). The Appellate Division found the Judge of Compensation erred when she concluded she did not have the authority to consider whether the attorney’s mistake in the administrative consolidation warranted reopening the 2003 claim and its judgment in 2008 or amending the 2013 application. As such, the Appellate Division remanded the case for the judge to review same.

While the Appellate Division did not comment on whether the petitioner’s request for relief was warranted, it noted the State did not dispute providing treatment to both knees at the same time and under the same claim number. The petitioner’s attorney alleged the Division’s personnel instructed him to treat both claims under one claim petition number, his objections to same were rejected, to seek consolidation of the claims at settlement of his 2013 application, and advised after four years that the 2013 application the 2003 claim was still open. The Appellate Division directed the Judge of Compensation to ascertain what happened between the parties and the Division representative and whether the petitioner pursued an application of his 2000 and 2003 awards.

 

_{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 © 2022 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.}