CP# 2001-11865 (2003). MANUAL DECASTRO, Petitioner vs. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

• Court: New Jersey

New Jersey Workers Compensation 2003. CP# 2001-11865 (2003). MANUAL DECASTRO, Petitioner vs. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent CP# 01-11862 DeCastro v. East Jersey State PrisonSTATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION OCEAN COUNTY DISTRICT C.P. # 2001-11865DECISIONMANUAL DECASTRO, Petitionervs. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RespondentAPPEARANCES:For the Petitioner: Richard Marcolus, EsquireFor the Respondent: Jane Lafferty, DAGBRADLEY W. HENSON, SR., J.W.C.,On February 2, 2001, Manuel DeCastro, a corrections Officer at East Jersey State Prison, stopped working, allegedly, as a result of a psychiatric impairment. On May 4, 2001, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Medical and Temporary Benefits alleging "a work related episode of sexual harassment and its aftermath from 1999 through February 2001." Petitioner claims the psychiatric impairment as a consequence of sexual harassment perpetuated by his supervisor, Lieutenant Denise Baker, and subsequent acts of retaliation and hostility, after he reported Baker's comments and conduct. In support of the motion, Petitioner submitted the reports of Dr. Carol A. Dobrzynski, M.D. and Anthony J. Papania, Psy. D. The Respondent's answer to the motion, filed May 22, 2001, was to not provide medical or temporary benefits and schedule an evaluation of the Petitioner with Dr. Holl on June 29, 2001. The hearing commenced on June 13, 2001, with the testimony of the Petitioner. On June 29, 2001, Dr. Holl inexplicably refused to evaluate the Petitioner. On August 15, 2001, this court entered an Order requiring the Respondent to provide their expert's evaluation report before the next listing of September 5, 2001. This court had previously reserved on the Petitioner's motion to strike the Respondent's answering statement since same was not filed originally as a denial and had scheduled an evaluation with Dr. Holl, ostensibly to determine the need for treatment. The Court was advised that Respondent would now have the Petitioner evaluated by Dr. Shaw. However, Dr. Shaw was unavailable until September 24, 2001 to conduct the exam. Therefore on September 17, 2001, an Interim Order was entered that would afford benefits to the Petitioner commencing June 29, 2001. The Interim Order also provided the opportunity for the Respondent to conduct an examination in defense of the motion. The court fashioned this remedy so as not to preclude the Respondent from presenting a expert, and in essence a defense. This court anticipated that the scheduled exam on September 24, 2001, with Dr. Shaw would proceed and Respondent would therefore be ready to proceed to either properly oppose the motion or possibly continue to provide benefits. Subsequent to the interim order of September 17, 2001, the appointment with Dr. Shaw was cancelled by the Respondent for reasons that were not apparent at the time. On October 5, 2001, Respondent filed an appeal of the Court's September 17, 2001 order with the Appellate Division. On October 12, 2001, Respondent filed a request for a stay of the September 17, 2001 order. On October 17, 2001, the request for a stay was denied by this court and denied again by the Appellate Division on November 28, 2001. On July 18, 2002, the appellate division reversed this court's order, and terminated all benefits and ordered completion of the hearing. The Appellate Division did not retain jurisdiction. The appellate division concluded that the Respondent had complied with this court's August 15, 2001 scheduling order by agreeing to rely upon Dr. Shaw's March 10, 2001 report. The Scheduling Order was not intended to allow the late submission of a report already in the possession of the Respondent for some five months. The scheduling order was entered because the Respondent's evaluating Doctor refused to examine the Petitioner on June 29, 2001. The Interim Order was entered because the Respondent's exam with Dr. Shaw was not scheduled until the end of September. In accordance with the remand from the Appellate Division the hearing was continued and completed. The Petitioner testified that he was inappropriately touched by Lieutenant Baker on several occasions. The most severe being a "lap dance" wherein Lieutenant Baker backed into the Petitioner's groin area and began moving while maintaining contact with Petitioner. There were many factual witnesses who testified that they were also inappropriately touched by Lieutenant Baker. Others testified that although they were not personally touched, they witnessed Lieutenant Baker's inappropriate touching. All of these witnesses testified that the touching they observed was in violation of the states' "no tolerance" policy towards sexual harassment. No one, other than Lieutenant Baker denied...