In the predawn hours of March 1, 2004, James Tlumac was tired and under the influence of alcohol when his truck ran off Route 31 in Hopewell Township, New Jersey. At the time, he was hauling a load of masonry for his employer. Tlumac filed a petition for workers’ compensa­tion benefits for the severe injuries he sustained in the accident. GRSLL&B, as counsel for the employer, High Bridge Stone, mounted a defense based primarily upon the affirmative statutory defense of intoxication.

The Compensation Judge ruled, and the Appellate Divi­sion agreed, that Tlumac is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Both courts reasoned that although intoxication may have contributed to the acci­dent, the evidence did not rule out fatigue and lack of sleep as additional contributing factors. In so doing, both courts effectively required the employer to prove that intoxication was the sole cause of the accident, to the exclusion of any and all other probable or possible causes.

The applicable statute establishes intoxication as a defense to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits when it is “the natural and proximate cause of the injury or death”. The statute does not contain the word “sole” nor does it specifically require the employer to prove that factors other than the intoxication contributed to the accident. However, in this case the courts relied upon an older line of cases reading the “sole” requirement into the statute.

GRSLL&B successfully petitioned the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case and, on March 20, 2006, Bob Golden presented his arguments to the Court. In short, he has asked the Court to reverse the older line of cases and apply the explicit language of the statute without imposing the additional “sole” require­ment that is not present.

A decision from the Supreme Court could come at any time, and all workers’ compensation insurers will surely be watching with interest. GRSLL&B will report on the outcome of this important case in a future issue.

Christopher H. Westrick, Esq.