Court Hears Arguments on Injured Volunteer Firefighter's Entitlement to Workers' Comp Benefits
The New Jersey Supreme Court is deciding whether a volunteer firefighter injured while responding to a fire should be awarded workers' compensation benefits even though she does not have outside employment.
January 04, 2019 at 01:22 PM
4 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court is deciding whether a volunteer firefighter injured while responding to a fire should be awarded workers' compensation benefits even though she does not have outside employment.
A lawyer representing Bridgewater Township firefighter Jennifer Kocanowski asked the court on Thursday to overturn an appeals court decision holding that, since she was unemployed at the time of the incident, and since she had no other paying job, she was not entitled to benefits.
“It is bedrock public policy that our intrepid firefighters respond to house calls. We should do nothing to chill that,” said Kocanowski's attorney, Galen Booth, to the court.
Denying workers' comp benefits to volunteer firefighters in positions such as Kocanowski's could discourage otherwise unemployed persons from offering to volunteer their services, said Booth, who heads a firm in Middlesex.
“Do we want them thinking twice before responding to a call?” he said.
Kocanowski, according to Booth, was severely injured while responding to a fire, and spent 35 months in treatment and was unable to work.
“She was deprived of sustainable income for those 35 months. She lost her car. She had to go on welfare. She had to begin using food stamps,” Booth said.
Responding to a question from Justice Jaynee LaVecchia about the Legislature's intent in enacting changes to the Workers' Compensation Act, Booth said lawmakers always meant to ensure that volunteer firefighters who were injured while responding to calls were compensated.
Booth noted that, had Kocanowski held down a part-time job as a school crossing guard, or if she had a paper route, she would have been eligible for up to $855 a week in workers' comp benefits.
Bridgewater Township's attorney, Jennifer Cottell, said the lower court ruling should be affirmed.
“She [Kocanowski] has to prove compensability,” said Cottell, of Capehart & Scatchard in Mount Laurel.
A plain reading of the workers' comp statute is clear, Cottell said. Since Kocanowski had no income, she wasn't eligible for workers' compensation benefits.
“Disability benefits are not automatic,” Cottell said.
Justice Barry Albin observed, ”Today you get a big zero” if you're in Kocanowski's position.
Cottell said that was how the statute is written and suggested that if legislators meant for the result to be otherwise, it should revisit the statute.
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.
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.
She applied for workers' comp 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.
The state Division of Workers' Compensation Benefits agreed with the township's position and denied Kocanowski's application for benefits. She then appealed.
In a December 2017 decision, Appellate Division Judge Karen 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 a petition for certification in the case in March 2018.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$10 Million Settlement Reached for Baby Injured by Disconnected Ventilator
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250