Unpublished Opinions for the Week of October 24, 2016

01-2-1614 Vernacchia v. Warren Hosp., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (15 pp.) Employee appealed the dismissal of her workers’ compensation claim petition. Employee worked as a housekeeper in hospital’s radiology department. Sparks emitted from a vacuum cleaner she was using shocked her left ankle. Six months later, she stopped working for hospital after being placed on temporary disability due to plantar fasciitis and was eventually terminated. She filed for workers’ compensation alleging occupational injuries from her exposure to radiation and constant standing during her employment and attributing her myriad physical ailments to the vacuum incident. Her expert witnesses testified that her diagnoses were causally related to her employment but denied that the vacuum incident could have caused her injuries. The compensation judge found that employee’s injuries were not causally related to her employment. On appeal, employee argued that the judge’s decision was not supported by sufficient credible evidence. The court agreed with the compensation judge because employee’s expert witnesses and records failed to provide any demonstrable objective medical evidence to support their assertions. Additionally employee admitted that the X-ray machines were turned off when she was cleaning and that she experienced ankle pain prior to her employment. Further, there was no evidence that she ever took Celebrex, which allegedly caused her fibromyalgia.

11-2-1615 Grossman v. Jun, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Defendant appealed from the judgment for plaintiff in a breach of contract case. Plaintiff operated a car audio shop that installed specialty items in cars. Defendant’s fiancÉ had owned a competing business, and after fiancÉ died, defendant and plaintiff agreed that defendant would perform installation work for customers that defendant would send to plaintiff, and defendant would pay for plaintiff’s services. Plaintiff did the work and sent invoices to defendant, but she refused to pay him and instead kept the money she charged the customers directly. Defendant did not testify at trial, and the judge granted judgment to plaintiff. On appeal, defendant contended that trial judge erred in piercing the corporate veil, asserting that she was a shareholder of her deceased fiancÉ’s S corporation. The court found that defendant’s assertion that she was a shareholder of the corporation lacked support in the record and that the judge did not have to pierce the corporate veil to hold defendant individually liable.