Worker Barred From Seeking Injury Damages in Retaliation, Discrimination Suit
- New Jersey’s Appellate Division reversed a trial court order that had allowed a former material handler for Ekornes Inc. to pursue compensatory damages for his shoulder injury and present evidence of workers’ compensation benefits to a jury as part of his discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the company.
- Haskins filed a workers’ compensation claim in June 2021 for a shoulder injury sustained in December 2020, which Ekornes settled in November 2022 with $85,995 in permanent disability benefits. The worker was later placed on FMLA leave, denied a work accommodation, and terminated in December 2021, prompting him to sue under the Law Against Discrimination and for workers’ comp retaliation.
- The court held that because the worker’s shoulder injury resulted from a workplace accident already compensated under the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision he could not seek separate bodily injury damages for that shoulder injury through his LAD or retaliation claims.
- The court distinguished this case from precedent where a bodily injury was directly caused by an employer’s failure to accommodate a disability, and clarified that while the worker cannot recover damages tied to the shoulder injury itself, he can still pursue legally viable claims for lost wages and emotional distress under his discrimination and retaliation causes of action.
Rulings Highlight Complexities in Routine Workers’ Comp Claims
- In Alexander v. NYC Dept. of Homeless Services (decided Sept. 17), the Third Department upheld a Board finding that a claimant with left hip, knee and back injuries from April 2020 did not qualify for total permanent disability, since his non-work-related morbid obesity, which left him confined to a motorized scooter, was found to be a significant contributing factor to his limitations, alongside evidence he remained capable of sedentary employment.
- In Rosario v. The William Carter Company (decided Sept. 17), the Third Department upheld a Board decision finding a compensable accident occurred even though CCTV footage showed a box merely dropping near, rather than striking, the claimant’s leg. The Law Judge found her reaction consistent with being struck, and the Board also relied on the carrier’s own independent medical examiner, who found a causal relationship — underscoring the risk of requesting a causation IME when contradictory non-medical evidence already supports the defense.
- In Loja-Saula v. Cosan Construction Corp. (decided Aug. 20), the Third Department affirmed a Board Panel decision finding no Section 114-a fraud violation despite the claimant’s failure to disclose prior claims flagged in an Insurance Services Office (ISO) report, since the report itself contained inconsistencies including mismatched names, addresses and an inconclusive “unspecified” injury entry, with no corroborating documentation tying those prior claims to the same body parts at issue.
- Together, the cases underscore recurring themes for defense strategy: non-work-related conditions can defeat total disability claims, video evidence doesn’t automatically settle causation disputes, and unsubstantiated ISO report matches may not be enough to establish fraud without supporting medical documentation from the claimant’s prior claims.