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...