The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to review Amato v. Township of Ocean School District, a pivotal case with significant implications for workers' compensation benefits related to COVID-19 occupational exposure, particularly concerning the interpretation of "essential employee" and a notable judicial recusal issue.

Jon L. Gelman

This decision by the state's highest court underscores the critical legal questions that it will address.

The Amato case originated from a dependency claim filed by the husband of a teacher who died from COVID-19 after returning to in-person instruction. The central legal question revolves around New Jersey's workers' compensation statute, NJSA 34:15-31.11 and 34:15-31.12, which establishes a rebuttable presumption that an essential employee's COVID-19 contraction during a public health emergency is work-related.

Essential employee

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling that the teacher was an "essential employee" under the statute. Although the statute doesn't explicitly list teachers as essential, the court found that they fell under a broader provision for "any other employee deemed an essential employee by the public authority declaring the state of emergency."

This interpretation was supported by guidance from the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management, which designated teachers as essential. The Supreme Court's review will provide definitive guidance on this interpretation, impacting numerous professions deemed essential during the pandemic.

Judicial recusal

A compelling aspect of the Amato case is the judicial recusal issue. The Township of Ocean School District sought to recuse the judge of compensation because she had previously sponsored the very legislation creating the COVID-19 essential employee presumption during her time in the New Jersey Assembly. The Appellate Division ruled that a judge who sponsored a bill that became law is not automatically disqualified from presiding over cases involving that law. Instead, the standard is whether a "reasonable, fully informed person" would doubt the judge's impartiality, given their prior legislative involvement.

The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the judge's decision not to recuse herself. The Supreme Court's review of this matter will set a significant precedent for judicial ethics and the appearance of impartiality when a judge has a legislative history pertinent to a case.

Key takeaways

• Definition of essential employee: The Supreme Court's decision will clarify the scope of "essential employee" under the workers' compensation law, specifically for COVID-19 claims, affecting professions not explicitly listed in the statute.
• Rebuttable presumption: The case reaffirms that even if an employee is deemed essential, the employer can still present evidence to rebut the presumption that the COVID-19 infection was work-related.
• Judicial recusal standard: The court will establish a precedent on when judges must recuse themselves if they have a legislative history relevant to the case, balancing their prior experience with the need for perceived impartiality.
• Impact on COVID-19 workers' comp: The ruling will significantly influence how future workers' compensation claims related to occupational COVID-19 exposure are handled in New Jersey.

Claimants' attorney Jon L. Gelman is the author of "New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law" and co-author of the national treatise "Modern Workers’ Compensation Law." He is based in Wayne, New Jersey. This blog post is republished with permission.