Geaney: Superior Court Can't Compel Plaintiff to File Claim Petition in WC Division

Friday, March 4, 2022 | 0

The case of Brian Smith v. Township of South Hackensack addressed an unusual procedural question seldom, if ever, seen before.

John H. Geaney

The Appellate Division decision provides hardly any factual background at all other than this brief summary: “Plaintiff, a volunteer firefighter, was struck by a South Hackensack fire truck at a time when, as he alleges, the individual defendants were using the truck to bar hop.” 

There is no discussion of why or when the accident took place. But Brian Smith did not file a workers’ compensation claim. Instead, he chose to file a personal injury complaint in the Law Division against South Hackensack and other defendants.

The defendants moved to dismiss the civil suit in November 2020. They argued that the Division of Workers’ Compensation possessed exclusive jurisdiction. The superior court judge transferred the case to the Division of Workers’ Compensation over plaintiff’s opposition.

However, the case was never listed because the Division of Workers’ Compensation’s computer system never recognized it, as no claim petition was ever filed. Smith then moved to reinstate his civil complaint. The judge denied the motion and wrote to the Division of Workers’ Compensation advising of the transfer order.

The supervising judge of the Division of Workers’ Compensation then responded that no action could be taken until the filing of a formal claim petition like any other workers’ compensation case. The superior court judge again refused to reinstate the civil case and commented that Smith could file a petition stating that it “is filed under court discretion.” Smith did not wish to file a petition in the division because he felt that would be a concession that there was jurisdiction in the Division of Workers’ Compensation.   

Smith then appealed to the Appellate Division, which ruled that the judge “abused her discretion in putting plaintiff to the peculiar burden of prosecuting a claim in another forum for the sole purpose of proving this other forum lacks jurisdiction over the claim.” 

The court added:

Plaintiff commenced his action in the superior court and, as the suitor and "master of his complaint," Puglia v. Elk Pipeline Inc., 226 N.J. 258, 282 (2016), plaintiff was entitled to pursue the matter in the superior court until such time as defendants are able — if ever — to show that the occurrence falls within the workers’ compensation laws.

The case discussed four grounds for invoking primary jurisdiction: when the issue 1) is a matter “often determined by trial judges and juries;” 2) when the division is “best suited” to determine the issue; 3) and when there is no risk of inconsistent rulings because 4) plaintiff has declined to file a petition for benefits in the division.

In this case, the key fact was that Smith never filed what is often called a protective claim petition in the Division of Workers’ Compensation. When there is both a superior court action and a claim petition in the Division of Workers’ Compensation, a superior court judge may sometimes stay the civil action pending a determination of jurisdiction by the judge of compensation.

The Appellate Division ultimately held that the Division of Workers’ Compensation did not have exclusive jurisdiction over this claim, based on a clear reading of the civil complaint as it was drafted.   

The Appellate Division added that “the division should not have been assigned by the trial judge the task of deciding the issue that may determine whether plaintiff should be relegated to workers’ compensation benefits rather than personal injury damages.”

It should be said that the use of the word “relegated” is unfortunate. It suggests workers’ compensation benefits are inferior. Benefits in workers’ compensation are often more generous than those in superior court, particularly where the plaintiff is at fault or where coverage is limited.

Putting this aside, this decision is a very helpful one. The court clarified an important point for practitioners: A superior court judge cannot compel a plaintiff to file a claim petition. The plaintiff is the “master of his or her complaint,” which means that a plaintiff has significant flexibility in presenting the case as he sees fit.

John H. Geaney is an attorney, executive committee member and shareholder with Capehart Scatchard, a defense law firm in New Jersey. This post appears with permission from Geaney's New Jersey Workers' Comp Blog.