As a shareholder in the Workers' Compensation Department, Kristy devotes her entire practice to workers' compensation defense litigation, representing universities, hospitals, construction companies, retailers, health care institutions, temporary employment agencies, supermarkets and various other small employers. Kristy is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, making her one of few attorneys in the firm who handle workers' compensation matters in both jurisdictions. Her knowledge and commitment to clients, as well as her professionalism toward her adversaries, have resulted in her being selected as a Super Lawyer - Rising Star in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Kristy attended Monmouth University on a lacrosse scholarship, earning honors including Athletic and Academic All-American, Northeast Conference Athletic and Scholar Athlete of the Year. She was also named Monmouth's Woman Athlete of the Year. Upon graduation, Kristy attended Widener University School of Law. While at Widener, she served on the editorial board of the Widener Law Review. Kristy also interned at the Burlington County Prosecutor's office and served as a mediator for landlord/tenant disputes in Philadelphia.
Results
Thought Leadership
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Three times is the charm. The Appellate Court again addresses the abuse of workers’ compensation judges’ discretion in awarding fees, costs and penalties.
January 1, 2023
Typically, not many workers’ compensation Superior Court or Supreme Court decisions come down each month. On average, there is one case each month that New Jersey practitioners need to read. So when three cases—albeit all unpublished cases and, therefore, not binding—come out within the year addressing judges abusing their discretion, it certainly sends a message. You may recall in earlier issues of this publication we alerted you to the case of Ripp v. County of Hudson, No. A-2972-20 (App. Div. Jun. 3, 2022), where the Appellate Court found that the judge erred in applying N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.2 and was mistaken in the exercise of discretion in assessing additional fees and penalties for a late payment of an award of disability. Then there was Saiti v. Garden Homes, No. A-1328-20 (App. Div. Oct. 11, 2022), when the Appellate Court found an abuse of the judge’s discretion in entering an order for sanctions without permitting defense counsel to be heard to explain why a settlement payment was delayed to determine if the delay was unreasonable. Now, just days before their holiday recess, the Appellate Court issued an opinion finding that one judge’s “awards cannot stand.” In Garzon v. Morris County Golf Club, the court appears to be so appalled by the abuse of discretion and the lack of any analysis in support of the fees, costs, and penalties that it directed the case to be sent to a different workers’ compensation judge on remand. Petitioners’ attorneys undoubtedly will be concerned with this decision as it details and points out that having the discretion to award fees up to a 20%, whether it be on medical and temporary benefits or permanency benefits, that authority “is not unbridled” and “cautioned against a reflexive application of a twenty percent award without a full analysis.” The Appellate Division highlighted that, rather than sending the respondent a message, as petitioner’s counsel requested in assessing fees/cost, workers’ compensation judges should be analyzing whether the petitioner’s attorney’s work on the claim justify those fees. While the court does concede that “the amount of the award is a factor to be considered,” it went on to explain that it has “limited significance in comparison to the more important factors including the nature and extent of the services and the responsibility involved.” What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 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 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.
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Special Workers' Compensation Alert - New Jersey
April 13, 2021
The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision today in Hager v. M&K Construction. The decision affirms a lower court ruling requiring an employer to reimburse a petitioner for the costs of medical marijuana prescribed as treatment for a work injury. The court shot down all arguments and found the following: Medical marijuana is a reasonable and necessary treatment under the New Jersey workers' compensation statute; There is no preemption under the Supremacy Clause as there is no positive conflict between the New Jersey’s Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act and the Federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA); Employers do not face a credible threat of federal prosecution for either aiding, abetting or conspiracy; Congress has deprioritized prosecution for possession of medical marijuana under the most recent federal Appropriations Act by prohibiting the Department of Justice from using allocated funds to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws; and Workers' compensation is not a “private health insurer” under the reimbursement exception (N.J.S.A 34:6I-14). This decision marks the second state Supreme Court to address the preemption argument. In Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC, 2018 ME 77 (2018), Maine’s Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that to comply with a court order to reimburse for medical marijuana would be to engage in criminal “aiding and abetting” conduct under the CSA as Twin Rivers Paper Co. would knowingly be subsidizing Bourgoin’s purchase of marijuana. Now that there are conflicting state Supreme Courts, could the next question be, “Will the U.S. Supreme Court weigh in?” 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 © 2020 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.
