Category Archives: Workers Compensation

Explainer: Who is NOT Covered by New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law?

Almost all workers in New York are covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law. of course, for every broad generalization like that one, there are exceptions. What are the exceptions to coverage requirements under New York’s law? Generally, see § 3 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Here’s a non-exclusive list of some of the most commonly-excepted employments in New York: Continue reading Explainer: Who is NOT Covered by New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law?

Video: The Second Injury Fund in New Jersey

Attorneys Karen Vincent and Greg Lois of the Lois Law Firm explain how New Jersey’s Second Injury Fund works, when relief can be obtained from the Fund, and strategies for maximizing the contribution of the Second Injury Fund. The presentation includes a practical step-by-step illustration of the impact of Fund contribution in a total disability case with pre-existing conditions.

Subject: New Jersey, Workers’ Compensation Law, Second Injury Fund
Date Presented: March 26, 2018
Presenter: Greg Lois and Karen Vincent
Run time: 23:08 Continue reading Video: The Second Injury Fund in New Jersey

Explainer: Special Categories of Employment for New York Workers’ Compensation Coverage

Wrap-Up Policies

On large construction projects the main general contractor may obtain a workers’ compensation insurance policy to cover all workers on a the job site – this policy is called a “wrap-up” policy. A wrap-up policy has an expiration date that coincides with the planned completion date of the project.

All the subcontractors should be listed as policyholders on the wrap-up policy. The general contractor and the majority of the sub-contractors should each also have their own separate workers’ compensation insurance policy. Continue reading Explainer: Special Categories of Employment for New York Workers’ Compensation Coverage

Understanding the “Distinctive Feature of Employment” Requirement for Occupational Disease Claims In New York

Disability stemming from any disease within the course of employment may entitle the employee to compensation, if the disease is found to be occupational in nature. Di Nicola v. Crucible Steel, Inc., 83 A.D.2d 735, 736, 442 N.Y.S.2d 582, 584 (3d Dept. 1981); see also Rodriguez v. Atlantic Gummed Paper Corp., 61 A.D.2d 873, 402 N.Y.S.2d 238, 239 (3d Dept. 1978). To be considered an occupational disease, the disease must be the
“result of a distinctive feature of the kind of work performed by claimant and others similarly employed, not an ailment caused by the peculiar place in which the particular claimant happens to work … or caused by ordinary contact with a fellow employee ….”
Paider v. Park East Movers, 19 N.Y.2d 373, 380, 280 N.Y.S.2d 140, 144, 227 N.E.2d 40, 43 (1967) (citations omitted). In order to obtain workers’ compensation benefits based upon an occupational disease, the claimant must “establish a ‘recognizable link’ between his condition and a distinctive feature of his occupation.” Engler v UPS, 767 NYS2d 496, 498 [2003]. Therefore, the foundation of determining if a disability resulted from an occupational disease is whether a distinctive feature of employment caused the disability.

Two factors result in occupational diseases: exposure to toxins and repetitive activity. This article discusses both and then provides some practical takeaways for practictioners defending these claims. Continue reading Understanding the “Distinctive Feature of Employment” Requirement for Occupational Disease Claims In New York

Practical Advice for Bifurcated Trials in New Jersey

A recent decision serves as a reminder that when cases are bifurcated for trial, the ruling may only be limited to the issue before the Court. In Moran v. Cosmetic Essence, the Judge of Compensation issued a ruling on temporary disability following a bifurcated trial regarding the compensability of an alleged work-related injury. On March 14, 2018, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey remanded the matter finding that the workers’ compensation judge should not have ruled to award temporary disability benefits following a bifurcated trial on compensability.

The facts in Moran.

The petitioner, Nestor Moran, filed a Claim Petition alleging that he was injured on January 28, 2016 while lifting a heavy box. Respondent filed an Answer denying compensability and alleging that no accident occurred while working. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Temporary and Medical Benefits. However, due to the fact that the Respondent denied a work-related accident occurred, it was agreed that they would bifurcate the trial limited to whether a work-related injury occurred and if such an injury did not occur, whether the petitioner committed fraud by pursuing the matter. Continue reading Practical Advice for Bifurcated Trials in New Jersey