Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

31 IRA D. SHAPIRO, D.C., ET ALS VS MIDDLESEX COUNTY MUNICIPAL JOINT INSURANCE FUND, ET ALS -- rank: 589

... How-ever, N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 and N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 See footnote 3 do not require that a particular kind ... on the date of its enactment." (Emphasis added). Footnote: 3 N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 provides in pertinent part:         "Medical services, medical treatment, physicians' services ...

docket:	a2399-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1998-01-20
status:	published
citation:	<a href=
Document Size:	25285

32 MARY BRADLEY, Petitioner-Respondent v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Respondent-Appellant.<br -- rank: 581

... employment, excluding areas not under the control of the employer. . . .         [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-36.]     It was the State's position below, as it is ... exclusion for "areas not under the control of the employer." N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. See footnote 3 3 Turning its attention to this contention ... Supreme Court in Livingstone concluded that the 1979 amendment of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, which imposed a more stringent definition of employment than had ... red herring." Ibid. However, it did consider the phrase in N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. We recognize the record is less than clear as to ... was not determinative. Id. at 593 ("[t]he phrase [in N.J.S.A. 34:15-36] 'excluding areas not under the control of the employer' does ... parking lots in a property sense. Under this view of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, if the employer does not exclusively maintain or exercise ...

docket:	a5211-99
court:	njappellate
decided:	2001-10-31
status:	published
citation:	344 N.J. Super. 568
Document Size:	38676

33 MARY BRADLEY, Petitioner-Respondent v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Respondent-Appellant.<br -- rank: 581

... employment, excluding areas not under the control of the employer. . . .         [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-36.]     It was the State's position below, as it is ... exclusion for "areas not under the control of the employer." N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. See footnote 3 3 Turning its attention to this contention ... Supreme Court in Livingstone concluded that the 1979 amendment of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, which imposed a more stringent definition of employment than had ... red herring." Ibid. However, it did consider the phrase in N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. We recognize the record is less than clear as to ... was not determinative. Id. at 593 ("[t]he phrase [in N.J.S.A. 34:15-36] 'excluding areas not under the control of the employer' does ... parking lots in a property sense. Under this view of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, if the employer does not exclusively maintain or exercise ...

docket:	a4829-99
court:	njappellate
decided:	2001-10-31
status:	published
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	38652

34 Sager v. O.A. Peterson Construction, Co. -- rank: 581

... direct performance of duties assigned or directed by the employer . . . . [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-36.] We recently set forth the decisional precedent prior to the ... L. 1979, c. 283, § 12, which is now codified at N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. That statute provides that employment shall be deemed to commence ... shall be deemed to be in the course of employment. [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 (emphasis added).] In Zelasko v. Refrigerated Food Exp. , we noted ... 18 (August 1981). We recognized that Judge Napier specifically construed N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 `to remove from compensability certain cases heretofore held compensable where ...

docket:	a-65-03
court:
decided:	2004-12-21
status:
citation:	182 N.J. 156 862 A.2d 111
Document Size:	127477

35 AUDREY BUSH v. KAUFFMAN & MINTEER, INC. -- rank: 579

... 580 (App. Div. 1997). Street , supra , involved an amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, which eliminated compensation benefits to employees eligible for benefits under ... Ā§ 901 et seq. The plaintiffs were receiving benefits under N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, and if applied retroactively, the amendment would have eliminated their ...

docket:	a4379-04
court:	njappellate
decided:	2007-05-14
status:	published
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	87146

36 LUZ M. CRUZ v. CENTRAL JERSEY LANDSCAPING, INC. -- rank: 579

... 580 (App. Div. 1997). Street , supra , involved an amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, which eliminated compensation benefits to employees eligible for benefits under ... Ā§ 901 et seq. The plaintiffs were receiving benefits under N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, and if applied retroactively, the amendment would have eliminated their ...

docket:	A3843-04
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2007-05-14
status:	published
citation:
Document Size:	91351

37 RUTH A. HERZER v. CLASSICAL CARS NISSAN, INC. -- rank: 579

... 580 (App. Div. 1997). Street , supra , involved an amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, which eliminated compensation benefits to employees eligible for benefits under ... Ā§ 901 et seq. The plaintiffs were receiving benefits under N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, and if applied retroactively, the amendment would have eliminated their ...

docket:	a4878-04
court:	njappellate
decided:	2007-05-14
status:	published
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	87147

38 VALENTYNA HOHL v. INSULATED DUCT & CABLE CO. -- rank: 579

... 580 (App. Div. 1997). Street , supra , involved an amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, which eliminated compensation benefits to employees eligible for benefits under ... Ā§ 901 et seq. The plaintiffs were receiving benefits under N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, and if applied retroactively, the amendment would have eliminated their ...

docket:	A3844-04
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2007-05-14
status:	published
citation:
Document Size:	91345

39 KENNETH FALK - v. CENTRAL JERSEY MECHANICAL INC. -- rank: 576

... he met the statutory or decisional law definition of disabled. N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 provides that "disability permanent in quality and total in character ... or marked improvement in such condition can be reasonably expected." N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. The Supreme Court stated in Ramos v. M&F Fashions ...

docket:	a4467-07
court:
decided:	2009-06-16
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	52218

40 KRISTIANSEN V. ROBERT W. MORAN, ET AL. -- rank: 574

... occurred during the course of employment within the intendment of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. We granted plaintiff's petition for certification, 148 N.J ... employment, excluding areas not under the control of the employer." N.J.S.A. 34:15-36.     The premises rule is based on the notion that an ...

docket:	a-27-97
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1998-03-12
status:
citation:	153 N.J. 298
Document Size:	61869

41 Ramos v. M & F Fashions, Inc. -- rank: 571

... on the employer's premises and one that did not. N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. That rule, with two exceptions inapplicable in this case, excludes ... area[] under the control of the employer" may be compensable. N.J.S.A. 34:15-36.     Because neither of the premises rule's exceptions apply, M ... or marked improvement in such condition can be reasonably expected." N.J.S.A. 34:15-36.     The SIF correctly observes that an expert opinion that a ... or marked improvement in such condition can be reasonably expected. [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-36.] Unlike permanent partial disability, a finding of permanent total disability ... employment, excluding areas not under the control of the employer.                 [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-36.]     Just four months ago, this Court acknowledged that the effect ...

docket:	a-109-97
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1998-07-13
status:
citation:	154 N.J. 583
Document Size:	55251

42 ELENA FORD v. DURHAM D&M, LLC -- rank: 571

... arise in the course of her employment, as defined by N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. Durham argued that, because the children were no longer on ... argument lacked merit and stated: The most logical interpretation of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 in this instance . . . is that petitioner's employment commenced when ... employment. This position is not consistent with that portion of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 which indicates employment begins when the employee arrives at work ... direct performance of duties assigned or directed by the employer[.]" N.J.S.A. 34:15-36; see also Cooper , supra , 411 N.J. Super. at 346 ... bus, the injury was compensable under the "ridesharing" provisions of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law ...

docket:	a2071-13
court:	New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-11-11
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	28491

43 BO LIU v. 4D SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC -- rank: 569

... his injury was compensable under the "special mission" doctrine. Citing N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, the JWC noted injuries occurring outside the workplace may be ... benefits. Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 34:15-7). N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 provides in pertinent part: Employment shall be deemed to commence ... direct performance of duties assigned or directed by the employer." N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. The record simply does not support the conclusion that contact ...

docket:	a3591-15
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2017-05-01
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	21995

44 SASHA SORMAZ - v. ALPHA MOVING STORAGE, INC. -- rank: 566

... Co. , 234 N.J. Super. 64 , 73 (App. Div. 1989)). N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 defines "[d]isability in quality and partial in character" as ... the injury was psychiatric in nature. The Court stated that N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 required the interposition of "a professional medical judgment between the ... mind discoverable only through statement." Ibid. The Court explained that N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 contemplated both types of criteria were considered objective within the ... resulting in a single compensable disability within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. [ Poswiatowski v. Standard Chlorine Chem . Co. , 96 N.J. 321 ... conclusion, our Court determined that the meaning of "disability" in N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. Poswiatowski , supra , 96 N.J. at 329. The Court went ...

docket:	a3482-08
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-02-18
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	67124

45 LAURA BURKE - v. INVESTORS BANK - March 16, 2015 -- rank: 559

... not compensable under the Act pursuant to the premises rule, N.J.S.A. 34:15-36. The crux of the matter is whether the area in ... course of employment." The term "employment" is further defined in N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, which provides: "employment shall be deemed to commence when an ... employment, excluding areas not under the control of the employer[.]" N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 was part of the Legislature's amendment to the Act ... she had not yet arrived at work for purposes of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36," because "where she parked was 'not under the control of the employer' so as to trigger coverage." Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 34:15-36). The Court recognized that while an employer's premises "is ...

docket:	a1551-13
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2015-03-16
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	24582