.

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In the recent unpublished case of Tomaselli v. Petco, 2026 WL 585448 (N.J. Super.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

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Holds That a Claimant Who Was Struck By a Car While Crossing the Street During an Unpaid Break Was In the Course and Scope of Employment

This case involved a claim petition filed by a claimant who sustained injuries after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street in front of the employer’s premises. The employer denied the claim based on course and scope, as the accident occurred during one of two mandatory fifteen (15) minute breaks provided to the claimant. The claimant would punch out at the beginning of a break and punch back in when the break was over.  On the date of the incident, the claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant, which required her to cross the employer’s parking lot, and then a public street, where the injury occurred. The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition, noting that that during the two mandatory fifteen-minute breaks per shift allowed by the employer, the claimant was free to leave the employer’s premises, and during breaks, permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired. The WCJ found that at the time of the accident, the claimant was on her own time, in the middle of the street, and going to get lunch.   The claimant filed an appeal with the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), and the Board reversed.  According to the Board, the claimant’s location was still on the employer’s premises, as the claimant was taking her customary route while using a reasonable ingress/egress from the employer.  Further, the Board found that the “Personal Comfort Doctrine” applied, as the claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort, within the window of time she was allotted for her break.  The Board remanded the case, and a WCJ granted the claim petition.  The Board affirmed, and the employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Before the Court, the employer argued that the claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment, because the injury did not occur on its premises, and the claimant was outside the bounds of the Personal Comfort Doctrine. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, and dismissed the employer’s appeal.  The Court noted that the break given to the claimant was so cursory, when she set out to relieve her hunger for her own personal comfort,  she remained in the course of her employment when she sustained her injuries.  A Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court has been filed by the Employer, Giant Eagle.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Appellate Court Rejects Horizontal Immunity Defense to Company Not Acting as Statutory Subcontractor

The First District Court of Appeal held that a property management company was not entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in a negligence action brought by an employee of another company working on the property. The claimant was injured while servicing a swimming pool at an apartment complex. His employer had contracted with the property owner to maintain the pool. Following the accident, the claimant received workers' compensation benefits through his employer’s carrier. The claimant subsequently filed a negligence action against the property management company, alleging that it failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition that caused his injuries. The property management company had been retained by the property owner to maintain the complex in good operating condition and to perform routine maintenance and repair work. The property management company argued that it was immune from suit under section 440.10(1)(e) of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. That provision grants immunity to a subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work from civil actions brought by employees of another subcontractor, subject to limited exceptions. According to the property management company, it qualified as a subcontractor working on the same project as the claimant’s employer and was therefore entitled to horizontal immunity. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, however, the claimant argued, and the appellate court agreed, that horizontal immunity applies only when a contractor has sublet work arising from a contractual obligation owed to a third party. The court noted that prior decisions consistently held that an entity acting solely on its own behalf as the owner of property, rather than pursuant to a contract with a third party, is not a “contractor” under section 440.10(1), even when it hires other companies to perform work on the property. In Teed, the property management company could not establish that the property owner had a primary contractual obligation to a third party to maintain either the apartment complex or the swimming pool, which it then delegated to the claimant’s employer or the property management company. As a result, the property owner did not qualify as a statutory contractor, and the property management company was not a subcontractor entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e). The First District therefore reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings on the claimant’s negligence claim.

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Legislation Updates

Since June 1, 2026, there have been no new New Jersey workers’ compensation related cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts. As such, below will highlight any new legislative updates since February. A1023 | S3984 - Medical Use of Cannabis Under Certain Circumstances This requires workers’ compensation, PIP, and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It was also introduced on March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. A1045  - Certain Injuries to Volunteer and Professional Public Safety and Law Enforcement Personnel This revises workers’ compensation coverage for certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1384 | S2757 - Reduce Statute of Limitations in Medical Fee Disputes This reduces statute of limitations from six years to two years in medical fee disputes in workers’ compensation matters. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1870 | S1379 - Workers' Compensation Benefits For Certain Workers Due to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks This provides workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed illness or injury as result of responding to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On February 5, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. A2779 | S1521 - Excludes Certain Illegal Aliens This excludes certain illegal aliens from workers’ compensation and temporary disability benefits. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A2792 | S1555 -  Prevent Intoxicated Employees from Workers’ Compensation This prevents intoxicated employees from receiving workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3167 | S2372 - Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirements for Certain Corporations and Partnerships This concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3548 | S3571 – Maximum Benefits for Certain Volunteers This provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers' compensation claim regardless of outside employment. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On March 2, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee. A3724 - Personal Liability to Employer Officers for Failure to Pay for Coverage This provides personal liability for owner, executive officer, or executive director of employer for failure to pay for workers' compensation coverage. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee. A4617  - Certain Workers' Compensation Supplemental Benefits and Funding Method This concerns certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits and funding method. For a permanently and totally disabled worker or surviving dependents after December 31, 1979, with some exceptions, this bill provides for an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers’ compensation benefit rate. It was introduced on March 10, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S241 - Inclusion in Database of Appointed Officials This requires that workers’ compensation judges and administrative law judges be included in database of appointed officials. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 to the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee. S2290 -  Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 72. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. S3144 - Testimony in Workers’ Compensation This concerns submission of testimony in workers’ compensation claims. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. S3342  - Increase Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on February 5, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial