X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 137 Decisions Released July 24, 1995 STATE COURT CASES ATTORNEYS — FEES 04-1-6222 Candy Rendine, et al. v. Edward Pantzer, etc., Supreme Ct. (77 pp.) In determining a reasonable attorney’s fee under a fee-shifting statute–here, the Law Against Discrimination — a trial court, after having carefully established the lodestar fee amount, may enhance the lodestar fee in cases in which the prevailing party’s attorney’s fee arrangement was predominantly contingent upon a successful result. [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Documents.] 04-1-6223 Meryl Szczepanski v. Newcomb Medical Center, Inc., et al., Supreme Ct. (29 pp.) Although relevant, the fee payable under a contingent-fee agreement may bear little relation to the reasonable fee award authorized by a fee-shifting statute — here, the Law Against Discrimination — and should not serve as the ceiling on the amount payable by statute. [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Documents.] CORRECTIONS 13-2-6224 Al-Tariq Jacobs v. James F. Barbo, et al., App. Div. (3 pp.) In determination of disciplinary charges against prisoner, all of the procedural safeguards to which he was entitled were complied with, and the failure to permit prisoner to produce exculpatory evidence and confront and cross-examine witnesses was not an abuse of discretion and could not have prejudiced prisoner, since he had admitted his guilt. DEBTOR/CREDITOR 15-2-6225 City Savings, F.S.B., etc. v. Paul V. Profeta, App. Div. (16 pp.) In a suit for amounts due on a line of credit, the trial judge correctly imposed upon the bank the burden of proving how much money was borrowed and how much interest it was due, and imposed upon the debtor the burden of proving the affirmative defense of payment, and his findings as to the amount due in granting judgment for the bank are affirmed. JURISDICTION — FORUM NON CONVENIENS 24-2-6226 Kevin MacKenzie, et al. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, et al., App. Div. (9 pp.) In a case where an adult plaintiff alleged sexual abuse against a priest, which took place when the plaintiff was a minor but was not recalled by him until later, and where the parties were all Pennsylvania residents and some of the acts took place there, but some of the acts allegedly also took place in New Jersey, the trial judge correctly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the New Jersey complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens, and the plaintiff’s contention that New Jersey is the only available jurisdiction because Pennsylvania law does not recognize the “repressed memory” doctrine as a toll to the statute of limitations has not been proven, although the dismissal should be entered without prejudice in case Pennsylvania bars prosecution. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 25-2-6227 Sharon M. Ammann v. Bd. of Review, et al., App. Div. (2 pp.) Since employee started a three-week course to obtain an insurance license without securing her employer’s permission, she was guilty of willful disregard of her employer’s interest, which constitutes work-connected misconduct, and she was properly disqualified for six weeks of unemployment benefits. 25-2-6228 Donna A. Battle v. AT&T Network Systems, App. Div. (5 pp.) Dismissal of employee’s complaint under the Family Leave Act by the state Division of Civil Rights is affirmed, since evidence showed that employee was offered the same rights as those offered other laid-off employees and even was granted supplementary rights that could have been exercised at a later time. NEGLIGENCE — AMUSEMENT PARKS — REMITTITUR 31-2-6229 Joseph Cassese, et al. v. William Major Jr., et al., App. Div. (7 pp.) After analyzing the trial testimony, which dealt with plaintiff being struck in the head and injured by a kiddie-ride helicopter, the trial judge correctly concluded that the jury had not reached its verdict on either liability or damages by prejudice, partiality or passion, and, once this determination was made, the case became a fitting candidate for remittitur when the judge also determined that, based upon the damage proofs, the verdict was excessive. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 39-2-6230 Calvin Mercer v. Suffolk County Contractors, Inc., App. Div. (3 pp.) When petitioner moved after two years to rescind a settlement because he was under the mistaken belief that the settlement included payment of all of his medical costs, the trial judge correctly ruled that petitioner was fully aware of the facts surrounding the settlement and knowingly and voluntarily entered into it, and, even if the settlement was rescinded, petitioner could not recover for the excluded medical bills because he had failed to sustain the burden of proving a causal relationship between a vascular condition for which the bills were incurred, and the work-related injury. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-6231 State v. Louis Thomas, App. Div. (10 pp.) The trial judge erred in his jurty instruction on unlawful weapon possession when he emphasized defendant’s ability to exercise control over the weapon, not defendant’s intention to exercise such control, and the conviction is, therefore, reversed. FEDERAL COURT CASES LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY 25-7-6232 Natalio Echevarria v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., U. S. Dist. Ct. (15 pp.) Secretary’s final determination, denying machine operator’s disability benefits application, is affirmed, since, although operator has shown that she is not engaged in “substantial gainful activity” and that she suffers from a severe medical impairment related to her heart and back problems, she has not shown that her impairment is equivalent to one of those listed by the secretary as creating a presumption of disability, and, although she met her burden of then showing that her impairment prevents her from performing work that she has performed in the past, the secretary has shown that there are other “light-work” jobs in the national economy that the operator can perform. 25-7-6233 Ruth E. Fudal v. Donna E. Shalala, Sec’y of Health and Human Services, U. S. Dist. Ct. (14 pp.) Secretary’s final determination denying hotel housekeeper’s application for disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income, is affirmed, since, although housekeeper met the Social Security Act disability insured status requirements for the period in question, and has shown that she suffered from a severe medical impairment during that period (related to her hypertension, diabetes, gallstones, asthma, enlarged heart, anemia, bleeding hemorrhoids and obesity), she has not shown that her impairment is equivalent to one of those listed by the secretary as creating a presumption of disability, and, although she met her burden of then showing that her impairment prevented her from performing the work that she has performed in the past — due to exposure to cleaning agents and perfumes — the secretary has shown that the housekeeper had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of sedentary work. 25-7-6234 John Covin v. Donna E. Shalala, Sec’y of Health and Human Services, U. S. Dist. Ct. (17 pp.) Secretary’s final determination denying rock crusher operator’s disability benefits application is affirmed since, although operator met the disability insured status requirements of the Social Security Act for the period in question, and has shown that he has not engaged in “substantial gainful activity” and that he suffers from a severe medical impairment related to his arthritis and high blood pressure, he has not shown that his impairment is equivalent to one of those listed by the secretary as creating a presumption of disability, and, did not meet his burden of showing that his impairment prevents him from performing the rock-crushing machine work that he has performed in the past, or a full range of other unskilled medium duty work. A

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.