.

Defense Digest

Don’t Waive Goodbye to Your Section 40 Lien Rights

Defense Digest, Vol. 32, No. 2, June 2026

June 30, 2026

by William J. Murphy

Key Points:

  • Under NJ workers’ compensation law, employers can assert a lien upon third-party actions for any medical and indemnity benefits paid.
  • The employers are free to compromise or waive this lien.
  • The Appellate Division found that a carrier cashing a check for less than the full lien amount, but accompanied by a letter stating this payment was full and final payment of the lien, constituted an agreement to waive the remainder of the lien. 

A chief concern of the workers’ compensation system in New Jersey has always been prevention of double recovery, in which an injured worker would obtain a “windfall” by receiving compensation from both a workers’ compensation claim and a third-party suit. In order to avoid this, the Workers’ Compensation Act provides the respondent with a lien against third-party proceeds. Known as the “Section 40 lien,” the respondent can assert a lien based on the medical and indemnity benefits it has issued for the workers’ compensation claim. The lien can be collected upon two-thirds of the third-party recovery, minus $750.00 for the costs of suit. 

As with most liens, a Section 40 lien can be negotiated. Employers will sometimes agree to compromise or, in some cases, even waive the lien. 

In the recent unpublished case of Tomaselli v. Petco, 2026 WL 585448 (N.J. Super. App. Div. April 3, 2026), the Appellate Division addressed a dispute as to whether an employer’s Section 40 lien had been compromised.

In the case, the petitioner was employed as a store manager at Petco (insured by Sedgwick).  On December 23, 2017, he was collecting shopping carts in the store’s parking lot when a car backed into him, causing injuries to his lower back. Since the petitioner was injured by a third-party tortfeasor in the course of his employment, he filed both a workers’ compensation claim against Petco and a suit against the driver.

The third-party suit ended with a settlement of $85,000 in underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits and $15,000 in third-party settlement.

At the time of resolution of the civil claim, Sedgwick had paid a total of $177,084.30 in benefits ($90,351.50 in medical and $86,732.80 in indemnity). This amount was not exhaustive, as the  petitioner was still undergoing treatment and the costs would continue to increase. At that point, Sedgwick was entitled to recoup over $65,000.00 from the third-party settlement.  However, in the spirit of compromise, they sent the petitioner a letter indicating that they would accept $33,333.33 from the UIM award and $15,000.00 from the third-party settlement. 

The petitioner’s lawyer sent a check to Sedgwick for $33,333.33 with a letter stating the check “represents full and final payment of any outstanding worker's compensation lien, in connection with the above-referenced claim." The check was cashed by the carrier.  

The workers’ compensation matter subsequently went to trial and ended with a judgment from the judge of compensation finding a percentage of permanent disability and further concluding that Sedgwick’s acceptance of the check for $33,333.33 with the aforementioned letter constituted an agreement to resolve the lien for only that amount. On appeal, Sedgwick argued that the mere act of cashing a check did not constitute a waiver of its Section 40 lien rights.

The Appellate Division ruled that it did. They stated that Sedgwick was clearly aware of its rights to recover the full amount allowable under their Section 40 lien, and that “[b]y accepting and endorsing the check, Sedgwick clearly and unequivocally conveyed its intent to accept $33,333.33 as full and final payment of any outstanding workers' compensation lien.”

While this is an unpublished opinion and therefore not binding, it will likely have persuasive authority for judges of compensation going forward. 

The impact of this case is significant. At most corporations, the high volume of checks received in the mail are sorted, endorsed, and deposited by an accounts receivable department or comparable business unit. However, in this opinion, the Appellate Division is ascribing significant decision-making authority to the action of one who is likely not a corporate officer, but a clerk. 

What are some actions that carriers can take to safeguard their Section 40 liens and prevent an unintentional waiver of same?

The first is to enact policies requiring supervisory approval before any check pertaining to a Section 40 lien repayment is deposited. Systems should be enacted which will lead to any check pertaining to Section 40 lien repayment being flagged, and requiring a supervisor to review and approve before it is deposited. 

  • If there is no language on the check or accompanying paperwork indicating anything about “full and final” or “resolution” or “waiver” or any other terms to that effect, the check can be deposited without issue.
  • If there is such language, consultation should be made with the workers’ compensation adjuster, defense counsel, or another designated party that can verify the full amount of the carrier’s Section 40 lien and determine whether any negotiated amounts have been agreed to by the carrier.
    • If the check with such language is in the full amount (or the negotiated amount, if applicable), the check can then be deposited.
    • If the check is for a lesser amount, it should be immediately sent back with a letter copying all pertinent parties, stating that the carrier is entitled to (state the full dollar amount of entitlement) and does not agree to accept a lesser amount.  The carrier should then ask the addressee to advise whether they will be re-sending the proper amount or whether further legal action will be required.

A second suggestion would be to designate that such checks need to be sent to defense counsel. This would task the carrier’s legal team with the job of verifying that endorsement of the checks does not unintentionally cause a waiver of lien rights. After review, the defense counsel can then pass the check on to the carrier or send back to the addressee, as the situation requires. 

A third cautionary step would be to issue a notice to petitioner’s attorney, indicating that the carrier is asserting its full lien rights under N.J.S.A. 35:15-40 and that going forward, the carrier does not consent to any compromise of its full entitlement unless noted in a formal agreement signed by both parties. While the service of this document by itself would be helpful, it would be optimal for it to be signed by petitioner’s attorney. Since the carrier is normally asked to produce a ledger showing the amount of its Section 40 lien, petitioner’s attorney should be told that production of the requested ledger will only be made upon receipt of the notice with their (the attorney’s) signature.   

The Tomaselli opinion has exposed a vulnerability in respondent’s rights to assert their full Section 40 liens they are entitled to under law. The carriers are entitled to recoup monies spent on medical and indemnity benefits. They should act with great care to ensure that entitlement isn’t lost through error.

William J. Murphy is in our Roseland office.  He can be reached at (973) 618-4129 or at wjmurphy@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.