.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Appellate Division vacated and remanded a trial court order denying employer’s application for satisfaction of its workers’ compensation lien as premature after the third party settlement.

N.J. Transit Corp. v. Joseph, No. A-1194-22 (Mar. 19, 2024)

May 1, 2024

by Kiara K. Hartwell

In October 2019, Darshelle Joseph was injured while working for NJ Transit and filed a workers’ compensation case and a third party case against the tortfeasor. In November 2019, NJ Transit sent Joseph a letter, requesting information on the third party case and notice of its right to recover for its lien. NJ Transit paid approximately $7,000 in workers’ compensation benefits. In December 2021, Joseph settled with his uninsured motorist (UM) carrier for $14,000, and his counsel disbursed the entire amount, minus fees and costs, to Joseph. The workers’ compensation case was still pending.

In September 2022, NJ Transit filed a verified complaint and order to show cause, seeking reimbursement of its lien. The trial court granted the order. After submitting letter-briefs, the trial court denied NJ Transit’s application as premature, without hearing oral arguments. NJ Transit appealed, and the Appellate Division reviewed de novo.

NJ Transit argued Joseph has to reimburse its statutory lien under N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 immediately after settling with his UM carrier. The Appellate Division reviewed the statute and case law, noting there was no mention of the timeline for satisfying an unperfected lien. For a perfected lien, if the workers’ compensation carrier or employer notified the tortfeasor or their carrier of the lien, then the duty would fall on them to ensure the lien was repaid. However, the Appellate Division noted there was no requirement that a lien had to be paid immediately following settlement with a third party tortfeasor; instead, it could not be fully satisfied until the workers’ compensation case was finalized and the employer’s liability determined. 

The Appellate Division did stress the employer’s right to reimbursement was provided with considerable protection. However, in this case, NJ Transit’s lien was not protected, and as such, it could unfairly pressure NJ Transit to resolve the workers’ compensation case for an amount equal to the lien or risk an uncollectable judgment. As such, the Appellate Division remanded to the trial court to ensure the lien was protected until the workers’ compensation case was resolved. 


 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 5, May 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. 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 © 2024 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

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.