January 1, 1900

by Ryan A. Marron

The Workers' Compensation Statute by nature is designed to provide a more efficient remedy for injured workers. While the statute is collaterally designed to protect employers and reduce costs, the reality is that the majority of claims result in an award for the injured worker. Thus, in the majority of claims the employer is faced with the question of "how much" should they pay to settle as opposed to whether or not they will win at trial. It is this inherent inequity in the Workers' Compensation system that makes the legal representation selected by an employer so important. A highly experienced Workers' Compensation attorney is best skilled at identifying those claims which should be tried, and more importantly, at negotiating settlements to best reduce the financial burden associated with a claim.

An attorney with these necessary credentials is capable of identifying all of the legal issues and nuances within the purview of the Workers' Compensation statute, while combining that ability with a working knowledge of the players and inner culture of the Workers' Compensation Bar. These qualifications afford the highly seasoned Workers' Compensation attorney with the ability to obtain swift resolutions which can eliminate excessive legal fees and reduce exposure. While the inequities are the norm, there is one type of workers' compensation claim which provides the employer with a stronger legal ground, and that is the claim for psychological disability due to job related stress.

The Courts Are On The Employer's Side

In New Jersey, the Court's analysis of a work related stress claim involving emotional or purely psychological injuries, that is a psychological injury absent physical harm or manifestation, can be traced back to the matter of Williams v. Western Electric Company. In the Williams case, the Court made it abundantly clear that under the appropriate circumstances a claim for emotional or purely psychological injuries based upon work related mental stress could be compensable. In reaching its conclusion, the Court set forth a standard which required plaintiff to establish the existence of objective evidence of job stress which when viewed "realistically" establishes working conditions sufficiently stressful to contribute to a mental disorder.

Objectivity, the Key to Success

The Williams standard remained intact until the Court was presented with the matter of Goyden v. State, Judiciary, Superior Court of New Jersey. In Goyden, the Court did not reverse their prior position, however, it provided further clarification as to what standards petitioner must meet to establish a compensable stress claim. The Court held that the working conditions must be stressful from an objective viewpoint; that the claimant's reaction was stressful; and that the medical opinion is supported by objective medical evidence. Further, the objectively stressful working conditions must be peculiar to the particular work place.

Once the latter standards were created, the Court, through subsequent decisions, took the opportunity to establish exceptions and distinctions to serve as a guide to the judges of compensation. Particularly, in the matter of Mathesius v. Saint Barnabus Medical Center, the court held that a petitioner's good faith belief that the employer created the condition of stress is not by itself sufficient to entitle the petitioner to Workers' Compensation benefits. In reaching its conclusion, the court relied upon the petitioner's failure to meet the "reasonable objective" basis set forth in the Goyden and Williams cases. Also, in utilizing the "peculiar to the particular work" standard, the court held in Cairns v. City of East Orange that receipt of a layoff or termination notice is neither peculiar to the employment nor essentially related to the work or nature of the work. Therefore, psychiatric injuries resulting therefrom are not compensable. On the issue of pre-existing conditions, the Court held that a pre-existing psychiatric disability does not bar a petitioner from recovery where the work stress contributes in a material degree to a disabling condition.

The above precedent established by the Court places a burden of proof on the Petitioner which not only puts the employee and employer on a more even footing, but, in some cases, actually gives the employer an edge. Employers should keep in mind that there is at least one type of Workers' Compensation claim that should not stress them out.

Ryan A. Marrone is an associate of Hill Wallack where he is a member of the Litigation Division and Workers' Compensation Practice Group.