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.