Back to Columns | Print Column | ||
State: N.J. Geaney: High Court Settles Jurisdiction, Medical Marijuana Cases: [2021-04-21] |
||
|
||
We are a few weeks into April, and already the New Jersey Supreme Court has considered two extremely significant issues for workers’ compensation practitioners, employers and carriers. The first decision was announced on April 1 when the Supreme Court decided not to take certification in the matter of Anesthesia Assocs. of Morristown, PA v. Weinstein Supply Corp. This means that the unreported Appellate Division decision stands dealing with jurisdictional issues in medical claim petitions. There are many hundreds of medical claim petitions in New Jersey where the only contact with the state of New Jersey is the location of the medical procedure. Anesthesia Associates of Morristown involved two consolidated cases. In the first case, the petitioner lived in, worked in and was injured in Pennsylvania and even filed a claim petition in Pennsylvania. The medical procedure took place in New Jersey, and the medical provider filed a medical claim petition in the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation seeking additional charges. In the other case, Surgicare of Jersey City v. Waldbaum’s, all contacts were in New York state, but the medical procedure again occurred in New Jersey. The medical claim petition was thereafter filed by the provider in the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation seeking the balance of its original charges of $252,000. In both cases, the respective judges of compensation found that there was no jurisdiction in New Jersey because the state had no jurisdiction over the worker’s underlying workers’ compensation claim. The judges dismissed the medical claim petitions. The Appellate Division affirmed: “Applying these considerations to the two cases before us, we agree with the two judges of compensation that there was no cognizable claim for a work-related injury in either case." Therefore, the division did not have jurisdiction over AAM’s or SJC’s claims and they were appropriately dismissed, substantially for the reasons expressed by the two judges of compensation. The medical providers next sought certification from the New Jersey Supreme Court. The action of the Supreme Court in denying certification in effect is an affirmance of the unreported Appellate Division decision. The problem is that unreported decisions are not technically precedential. They do not have to be followed by other judges. It seems clear that the New Jersey Supreme Court agrees with the reasoning of the judges of compensation and the Appellate Division. Frankly, the Appellate Division decision needs to be reported by the Committee on Publications because it resolves a hotly contested issue within the division and will avoid further appeals. On April 13, the New Jersey Supreme Court released its decision in Vincent Hager v. M&K Construction. The facts of this case will be dealt with only briefly. The issue concerned whether an employer can be ordered to reimburse the petitioner for the ongoing costs of medical marijuana under the New Jersey Compassionate Use Act. The judge found in favor of the petitioner and ordered the employer to make reimbursement. The Appellate Division affirmed in 2020. The Supreme Court has now affirmed the Appellate Division decision in a very lengthy opinion. The Supreme Court found as follows:
Some other state courts, such as in Maine and Massachusetts, have gone in a different direction from the New Jersey Supreme Court on preemption. The New Jersey court acknowledged that there is no consensus on this issue among all the states that have addressed it. Eventually, this issue may find itself before the United States Supreme Court. John H. Geaney is an attorney, executive committee member and shareholder with Capehart Scatchard, a defense law firm in New Jersey. This post appears with permission from Geaney's New Jersey Workers' Comp Blog. |