Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 MATTHEW RADER v. OMNI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. -- rank: 1000

... Omni was QMT's professional employment organization (PEO), pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:8-67 to -79, at the time of Rader's injury and ... court failed to consider or to mention the PEO statute, N.J.S.A. 34:8-67 to -79, which they contend would justify a reversal. Neither ... next assert, without elaboration, that the PEO statute, citing to N.J.S.A. 34:8-67, permits only one PEO at a time to represent an ... disagree. Contrary to the categorical assertions by CNA and ALF, N.J.S.A. 34:8-67 does not explicitly state that a client company may be ... to, those responsibilities provided in section 2 of this act. [ N.J.S.A. 34:8-67.] Both CNA and Omni assert that the court of compensation did not heed N.J.S.A. 34:8-67 in finding that QMT could have had joint PEOs, ...

docket:	a0576-07
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2009-10-29
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	71374