.
Workers' Compensation

Defense Digest

Waiting on a Workers' Compensation Lien Reimbursement in New Jersey? You May Have to Wait a Little Longer. Section 40 and the Timeline for Satisfaction

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 2, June 2024

June 1, 2024

Key Points:

  • The New Jersey workers’ compensation statute and applicable case law protects employers’ worker’s compensation lien rights against an injured worker’s third-party recovery. 
  • An employer can perfect its lien by providing notice to the third party that there is a worker’s compensation action; Perfecting the lien obligates the third party to inquire about and satisfy the statutory portion of the employer’s lien prior to paying the third-party proceeds to the injured party. 
  • The statute does not require either the third party or the injured worker to make payment on its lien immediately following payment of third-party proceeds, rather, this obligation waits until the lien amount is set. 

In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Darshelle Joseph, 2024 WL 1172784 (NJ Super. App. Div. Mar 19, 2024), the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed a court order denying an employer’s application for satisfaction of a workers’ compensation lien. The Division found that an employer cannot recover on its workers’ compensation lien until that amount is set. The Appellate Division’s decision impacts an employer’s timely right to compensation of their lien under Section 40 of the New Jersey workers’ compensation statute.

Darshelle Joseph was involved in a compensable work injury on October 23, 2019. Mr. Joseph later filed a workers’ compensation, claim alleging permanent disability. Mr. Joseph also filed a third-party action against the alleged responsible party in the underlying incident. 

New Jersey Transit’s carrier sent a letter to Mr. Joseph dated November 11, 2019, informing him of its right to recover on money paid as a result his workers’ compensation claim. The carrier also requested that Mr. Joseph notify them whether he retained counsel to represent him in his third-party action.

The carrier ultimately paid a total of $7,112.90 in workers’ compensation benefits as a result of Mr. Joseph’s work injury. Mr. Joseph resolved his third-party claim in December 2021 for $14,000. Mr. Joseph’s attorney in the third-party action disbursed the settlement minus the attorney fee of $4,661.63 and $15.10 for costs. Mr. Joseph’s net was $4,676.73. The workers’ compensation case remains unresolved.

Following the third-party resolution, New Jersey Transit filed a verified complaint and order to show cause seeking reimbursement of its worker’s compensation lien. The parties argued their respective points, and the court subsequently denied New Jersey Transit’s request as premature. New Jersey Transit appealed that decision, and the Appellate Division took the appeal. 

The Appellate Division recited the relevant parts of Section 40 of the New Jersey workers’ compensation statute. It noted that in the event of an injured worker’s third-party recovery, the employer shall be entitled to recover if the amount the injured worker obtains from the third-party action is equivalent to or greater than the workers’ compensation lien and on the amount that exceeds the attorney fee on the third-party action and the costs associated with that action. The Division also noted that the statute provided that, if the employer provides notice of its workers’ compensation lien to the third party prior to third-party payment on a suit, the third party then has the duty to inquire prior to making any payment of the amount of the workers’ compensation lien and the obligation for payment. 

New Jersey Transit argued that it was entitled to reimbursement on its statutory workers’ compensation lien immediately upon the third-party action being resolved. It further argued that this is required regardless of the status of the workers’ compensation action in question. 

The Division noted that Section 40 of the statute, which covers third-party recovery, was enacted to guard against double-recovery. Section 40 provides a statutory lien in favor of an employer that attaches against an injured worker’s third-party recovery. This right to reimbursement depends on an injured worker realizing recovery on a third-party action. The Division also noted that while the statute outlines when and under what conditions an employer can recover on its lien, the statute does not provide a specific timeline on when this recovery takes place. However, it notes that the amount of the employer’s lien cannot be determined until the workers’ compensation benefits paid is finalized. 

The Division went on to discuss that, if the employer perfected its lien and notified the third party regarding the workers’ compensation lien, then the third party, as outlined above, would be obligated to satisfy this portion of the lien prior to making payment on the third-party action. The Division reinforced the section of the statute wherein workers’ compensation liens attach the third-party recovery. However, the Division cited case law supporting that notice of and perfection of the lien is not required in order to attach Section 40 lien rights to a injured worker’s third-party recovery. Perfecting the lien obligates the third party to consider the employer’s lien and make payment on that lien prior to making third-party payment to the injured party. 

However, none of this requires either the third party or the injured worker to satisfy the employer’s Section 40 lien rights immediately following recovery on its third-party action. In fact, the parties are unable to know the extent of the employer’s lien amount until that amount is finalized. Regardless, the Division reinforced that the employer’s right to third-party recovery enjoys great protection. The Division, therefore, remanded the case back the trial court so steps could be taken to reinforce the employer’s lien rights either via a third-party fund being held by the court or deposited into an attorney trust account until such time that the workers’ compensation action is resolved. 

This case reinforces the employer’s right to recovery on its workers’ compensation lien against an injured worker’s third-party recovery if that recovery is equal to or greater than the workers’ compensation lien. This decision also provides guidance to an employer regarding its right to recovery in the event the lien is perfected or not. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 2, June 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. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

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

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney