CP# 2004-29233 (2010). TERRENCE JOHNSON, Petitioner v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Respondent.
Court | New Jersey |
New Jersey Worker's Compensation
2010.
CP# 2004-29233 (2010).
TERRENCE JOHNSON, Petitioner v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Respondent
CP#
2004-29233 Johnson v. State of New JerseySTATE
OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CAMDEN
COUNTYTERRENCE JOHNSON,
Petitioner v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Respondent CLAIM
PETITION No: 2004-29233DECISION ON
REMANDBEFORE: HONORABLEEMILLE R. COX Supervising Judge of
CompensationAPPEARANCES: STARK and STARK By:KEVIN
M. BRADWAY, ESQ. For the PetitionerPAULA T. DOW ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
By: STEPHANIE L. MEREDITH DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL For the Respondent The facts of this case have been previously outlined in an
opinion of this Court dated November 25, 2008. In that opinion I held
that the Section 40 subrogation rights of Respondent State of the New Jersey
does attach to the proceeds of Petitioner's personal uninsured motorist
coverage from a personal automobile policy issued in Pennsylvania.
Petitioner appealed. The Appellate Division remanded the matter for
this Court's consideration of Petitioner's conflict of laws assertion and,
specifically, whether the proceeds received pursuant to Petitioner's
Pennsylvania personal automobile policy constitute a double recovery as
contemplated by New Jersey Workers Compensation law.
The remand sets forth much of the required conflict of laws
analysis in this case. I need only to recap it briefly. The
first of the two pronged analysis requires consideration of whether there is an
actual conflict between the laws of the respective states. The opinion
concedes that there is a clear conflict between the laws of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania in this case since New Jersey recognizes that uninsured motorist
proceeds constitute a third party recovery subject to Respondent's rights to
subrogation while Pennsylvania does not. The second prong of the
analysis requires the identification of the governmental policies behind each
state's interest. As pointed out in the remand, and reiterated by
Respondent's counsel at oral argument before this Court, New Jersey has a
significant interest in protecting the state's compensation lien in this
instance since Petitioner was employed in New Jersey, was injured here while
driving a state-registered vehicle, and voluntarily availed himself of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial