.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Court of Appeal Affirms Ruling That Late‑Asserted Major Contributing Cause Defenses Are Waived

Budd v. Jandrew Enterprises LLC, (1D2024-3161, January 30, 2026) (OJCC# 23-004984)

March 1, 2026

by Blake J. Hood

The First District Court of Appeal recently issued a per curiam affirmed (PCA) ruling concerning the perennial issue of major contributing cause and the right to deny treatment for pre-existing conditions. As a PCA, this case has no precedential authority. However, the case serves as a reminder of best practices regarding issuance of denials and 120 letters when pre-existing conditions are at issue.

In Budd, the employee was injured after having a gun held to her head and being pulled from her car. She was thrown to the ground and struck the left side of her body, including her knee. Initial hospitalization included x-rays that revealed degenerative joint disease and advanced end stage arthritis. One month later, an MRI that was authorized by the employer/carrier revealed degenerative joint disease and osteoarthritis.

The employer/carrier then authorized an orthopedic surgeon for an evaluation. Again, the doctor diagnosed the claimant with advanced end-stage arthritis of the knee and a chronic partial ACL tear. The doctor recommended treatment including an injection, which the employer/carrier authorized, and ultimately, a total knee replacement.

Well after 120 days of the authorized orthopedic evaluation and injection, the employer/carrier questioned the major contributing cause of the need for knee surgery. The authorized treating orthopedic physician opined that 60% of the need for the surgery was pre-existing, while only 40% was attributable to the accident. The claimant retained an independent medical examination, claiming that the major contributing cause of the need for surgery was industrial accident.

The claims adjuster testified that the employer/carrier never issued a DWC-12 Notice of Denial as to any pre-existing condition or put the provider on notice that any pre-existing condition was not authorized for treatment.

The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found that the employer/carrier was on notice of the pre-existing end-stage arthritis after the initial orthopedic evaluation. Nonetheless, they chose to authorize treatment for the same through the time that the doctor recommended the total knee replacement, well after 120 days from the evaluation. The JCC ruled, and the DCA affirmed, that the employer/carrier failed to meet its burden to show a break in the chain of causation as to the need for specific treatment once compensability of a condition had been accepted and treated. The employer/carrier was therefore responsible for the total knee replacement surgery.

This case illustrates the importance of issuing Notices of Denial or at least 120 letters whenever diagnostic findings or authorized provider opinions reveal pre-existing conditions that may require treatment. Failure to do so may result in waiver of defenses.

Firm Highlights

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.