The New Jersey Supreme Court has once again addressed the legal test surrounding the “intentional injury” exception to the New Jersey workers’ compensation bar in Van Dunk v. Reckson Associates Realty Corp., 2012 N.J. LEXIS 678 (June 26, 2012).
Like most states, New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act provides medical and disability benefits to workers injured on the job, without regard to fault. These benefits are the exclusive remedy for a worker’s injuries, unless the worker can prove that the injuries were “intentionally caused” by the employer. In the seminal cases of Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 501 A.2d 505 (N.J. 1986), and Laidlow v. Hariton Machinery Co., 790 A.2d 884 (N.J. 2002), the court had previously described the two-pronged test (addressing the conduct of the employer and the context of the injury) to determine when an injury is considered intentional. Importantly, no single fact is dispositive. Rather, the court will look to the totality of the circumstances in reaching its determination.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
