Holding: Injuries resulting from an accident that occurred while an off-site employee was driving for a cup of coffee in the employer’s vehicle on his coffee break was compensable under the workers’ compensation law.

Barnickel Enterprises appealed from a judgment of the Division of Workers' Compensation awarding a “100% disability for residuals of multiple compound comminuted fractures of both legs and left arm” suffered during an automobile accident in February 2003. As respondent employer Barnickel's master plumber and foreman, petitioner was authorized to use its truck to drive to and from home, and between job sites. On Saturday, February 8, 2003, after going to a job site, he went to the union hall in Winslow Township to discuss the plans for a new job, which was to start the following Monday, with one of two union instructors and to obtain a copy of a code referred to in the plans. Upon arriving at the union hall at approximately 11:15 A.M., petitioner discovered that the instructor he was looking for was teaching a class and talking with students. Petitioner felt he could not interrupt the instructor, and decided to take a coffee break and to return to the union hall at lunch time to talk to the instructor. Petitioner was driving his employer Barnickel's truck to a delicatessen about five miles away from the union hall when the accident occurred. The critical issue on appeal was whether the accident arose “in the course of” employment under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.

An employee is entitled to compensation for an accidental injury under the Workers' Compensation Act if the injury “ar [ose] out of and in the course of employment.” The test of whether a minor deviation is compensable depends on “whether that employee has embarked on a personal errand that would have been compensable if carried out by an on-premises employee.” Here, the judge of compensation found that petitioner was an “off-site” employee who, facing an extended wait to consult with an expert concerning a work-related issue, was injured while driving for a cup of coffee. It cannot be expected that he would stand like a statue or remain at the union hall with nothing to do for such a period, particularly when there was no coffee available at the site. The court could not conclude “in these circumstances that the injuries were not compensable merely because petitioner chose to take his authorized “coffee break” other than at the closest location.” The distance of the coffee shop from respondent's off-site jobsite was reasonable given the rural nature of the community in Winslow Township and the time petitioner had to wait to seek the counsel he sought. The judge found petitioner to be credible, and accidents occurring during coffee breaks for off-site employees, which are equivalent to those of on-site workers, are minor deviations from employment which permit recovery of workers' compensation benefits.

International School Services, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 408 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 2009)

Holding: An order declaring that plaintiff was obligated to provide workers’ compensation coverage for its overseas employees is reversed and the matter is remanded for further discovery respecting the employees’ contacts with New Jersey and for reconsideration under Connolly.

International Schools Services (ISS) is a non-profit organization headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey. It employs 163 teachers in overseas schools under annual renewable contracts, which are often renewed for several years at a time. The overseas employees work entirely overseas and not in New Jersey. Of these employees, 108 were United States citizens, and 55 were foreign nationals. None of the United States citizens are New Jersey residents. In its contracts with foreign schools, plaintiff agrees to maintain all insurance required by law, including workers' compensation insurance for its overseas employees. Plaintiff passes the costs of such insurance onto the schools it serves. Beginning in 2003, Plaintiff was unable to find an insurance carrier in the voluntary market that would provide workers' compensation insurance for all of its overseas employees. Plaintiff filed a verified complaint in the Law Division seeking a declaratory judgment that its overseas employees were not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court found that the Act requires that a “New Jersey Company” provide workers' compensation insurance for all of its employees, wherever they work.

Under the Act, employers are required to provide for payment of obligations arising from workplace injuries through insurance coverage. The Act broadly defines an “employee” as one who performs services for an employer for financial consideration. In Connolly v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 317 N.J.Super. 315 (App.Div.1998), the court noted that the following factors traditionally trigger jurisdiction in the New Jersey compensation court: (1) the injury occurred in New Jersey; (2) New Jersey is the place of the employment contract or hiring; (3) the employee lives in New Jersey and there were at least some employment contacts in New Jersey; and (4) “where there exists neither location of the injury, location of the employment contract or hiring, or residency of the employee in New Jersey, jurisdiction may still arise where the ‘composite employment incidents present a[n] ... identification of the employment relationship with this State.’ ” The location of the employer, however, is never, by itself, sufficient to confer jurisdiction over out-of-state injuries. In reviewing the record, the found that the trial court did not consider the appropriate factors in making its determination as to whether the plaintiff was required to provide coverage under the Act to its overseas employees. The trial court should have taken the Connolly factors into account. The court held that the record did not allow it to make a generalization as to whether the Act applied to any of the plaintiff’s overseas employees, and thus the case was reversed and remanded for expansion of the record to clearly ascertain whether any of the plaintiff’s employees came within the Connolly analysis. If plaintiff could demonstrate that none of its overseas employees had sufficient contacts with New Jersey to support a workers' compensation claim, plaintiff was not obligated to maintain such coverage.

NEW JERSEY WORK ACCIDENT LAWYERS CONSIDER MEDICAL BENEFITS PROVISION OF THE NEW JERSEY WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT TO PROVIDE NECESSARY AND REASONABLE MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR INJURED EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE ACT.

According to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15: “an employer shall furnish such medical, surgical and other treatment and hospital service as shall be necessary to cure and relieve the worker of the effects of the injury and to restore the functions of the injured member or organ where such restoration is possible.” As such, New Jersey work injury employees who cannot medically have the reduced function of the member or organ restored are entitled to permanency benefits.

According to the New Jersey statute, if the employer refuses or neglects to provide medical treatment, the work injury employee may secure such treatment and the employer will become liable for the payment, provided that the employee requested the employer to furnish the treatment and the employer refused or neglected to do so, or, unless notification is impossible due to the nature of the injury or the circumstances where so peculiar as to justify.

Case law interpreting the statute has held that as long as there is competent medical evidence and the treatment is reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the injury, there may be the necessity for continuing medical treatment if the function of the member or organ is thereby increased.

Legal Quote of the Week:

No law perfectly suits the convenience of every member of the community: the only consideration is, whether upon the whole it be profitable to the greater part.

Livy, History of Rome, c. 10 b.c.