The New Jersey Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether a volunteer firefighter who was injured while responding to a fire should be awarded workers' compensation benefits.

The firefighter, Jennifer Kocanowski, is seeking to overturn an appeals court decision that found, since she was unemployed at the time of the incident, and since she had no other paying job, she was not entitled to benefits.

Kocanowski's attorney, Galen Booth, who heads a  firm in Middlesex, said he was “very happy the door has opened and we have a shot at convincing the Supreme Court of the merits of our claims.”

Bridgewater Township's attorney, Jennifer Cottell of Cooper, Cottell & Taylor in Somerville, didn't return a call seeking comment.

“Kocanowski's claim is at odds with the underlying reason for awarding temporary disability, which is to replace lost wages,” Appellate Division Judge Karen Suter wrote last Dec. 11, joined by Judges Carmen Messano and Jane Grall. “Indeed, the case law is clear that when there are no lost wages, the payment of temporary disability is considered a windfall.”

According to court documents, the accident occurred on March 6, 2015. At the time, Kocanowski was a 14-year volunteer with Finderne Fire Engine Co. in Bridgewater. Kocanowski, a trained home health aide, had not worked professionally since 2013, when she left her job to take care of her elderly father, the court said.

While responding to a fire on that date, Kocanowski slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk and broke her right leg. Over the course of the next year, she underwent surgeries to repair damage to her leg, foot and left knee. She never returned to work as a home health aide, the court said.

She applied for workers' compensation benefits, arguing that she was entitled to benefits because she was injured on the job. Bridgewater Township objected to the application, saying that she was not entitled to benefits because she did not suffer any loss in salary. Kocanowski had been asking for about $855 a week in workers' compensation benefits.

The state Division of Workers' Compensation Benefits agreed with the township's position and denied Kocanowski's application for benefits. She then appealed.

Suter said that while the Workers' Compensation Act was meant to be liberally construed, there had to be a loss of wages in order for a worker to be qualified to receive benefits. That was not the case here, even though Kocanowski was engaged in a “laudable” mission when she was injured, Suter said.

The Supreme Court granted Kocanowski's petition for certification on March 14.