| Volume 13 Number 7 | Spring 2002 |
| On February 25, 2002 the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in Laidlow v. Hariton Machinery Company, Inc., holding that
fact issues on whether an employer acted with knowledge that it was substantially certain a worker would suffer an injury when the
employer tied up a safety guard precluded summary judgment on the grounds of the Workers Compensation bar. Rudolph Laidlow suffered
an injury when his hand became caught in a rolling mill he was operating at his place of employment, AMI-DDC, Inc. ("AMI"). Laidlow
was performing his job as a ‘set up man", which re.quired him to work with a rolling mill that changed the dimension of heated metal
bars when inserted in the mill. Laidlow was required to manually insert the bars into the rollers. Laidlow and another employee had
described several instances in the past where an employee s gloved hand was caught and pulled into the rollers. Although these events
did not result in injury, AMI arranged to have a safety guard installed on the roller in 1979. However, Laidlow testified that the
safety guard was always "tied up" to allow for easier access to the rollers. Laidlow further testified that the safety guard was only
put in proper place when Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") inspectors came to the plant. The mill operated without
the safety guard in place for approximately twelve to thirteen years, without accident until Laidlow s hand was pulled into the roller
in December 1992. Laidlow sued AMI on an intentional tort theory, also naming his supervisor as a direct defendant. AMI answered the complaint and moved for summary judgment on the basis of the Workers Compensation bar. In opposition to the motion, Laidlow presented an expert opinion that AMI "knew that there was a virtual certainty of injury to Mr. Laidlow or a fellow worker arising form operation of the mill without a guard." On these facts, the trial court concluded that Laidlow failed to demonstrate an "intentional wrong" and, under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, that Workers Compensation was his exclusive remedy. The trial court granted AMI s motion for summary judgment and the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal (see Laidlow v. Hariton Machinery Co., lnc, 335 N.J. 330, 762 A.2d 311(2000)). The Appellate Division relied on the lack of any accident over a twelve-year period and determined Continued on page 3
|
In the Matter of Charles D. Scott, 321 N.J. Super. 60 (App.Div. 1999), dealt with the interplay between the Workers Compensation
Act and the Temporary Disability Benefits Law. N.J.S.A. 34:15-7; N.J.S.A. 43:21-29 and -30. The main issue in In the Matter of
harles D. Scott was whether Mr. Scott was entitled to temporary disability benefits for his full-time job while receiving workers
compensation benefits for his part-time job. Scott, 321 N.J. Super. 60.
Charles Scott was employed full-time with Konica Business Machines and part-time with Holiday Bowl, Inc. Mr. Scott was injured at his part-time job and received wage replacement benefits under the Workers Compensation Act for the cart-time job. Mr. Scott then applied for temporary disability benefits under the full-time employer s private disability plan as he lost all wages from this job considering he was unable to work the full-time employment due to the injury at the part-time employment. The private plan hearing officer of the Department of Labor, Board of Review denied Mr. Scott the temporary disability benefits for his full-time employment. Id. Scott's full-time employer argued, and the Board of Review agreed, that Scott was not entitled to the private plan benefitsas the Continued on page 3 |