CP# 2010- 6282 (2011). J.K. Petitioner v. AUDUBON SAVINGS BANK Respondent.

• Court: New Jersey

New Jersey Workers Compensation 2011. CP# 2010- 6282 (2011). J.K. Petitioner v. AUDUBON SAVINGS BANK Respondent CP# 2010-6282 J.K. v. Audubon Savings BankSTATE OF NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION CAMDEN VICINAGE C.P. # 2010-6282J.K. Petitioner v. AUDUBON SAVINGS BANK RespondentDECISION ONMOTION FOR MEDICAL andTEMPORARY BENEFITSBEFORE: HON. GEORGE H. GANGLOFF, JR. JUDGE OF COMPENSATIONAPPEARANCES: Danielle Chandonnet, Esquire Shebell and Shebell Attorney for Petitioner Kathleen Burghardt, Esquire Styliades, Jackson and Burghardt Attorney for Respondent This matter came before the Court on motion for medical treatment and temporary disability benefits filed by the petitioner, J.K. Ms. K, an employee of the respondent, Audubon Savings Bank, claimed, via the motion, that a course of occupational events allegedly caused her to suffer psychiatric distress and a need for medical treatment. The testimony in this matter was extensive and involved petitioner, petitioner's co-workers and past and present supervisors of petitioner's department within the bank. Expert psychiatric testimony was also proffered both in support of and in opposition to petitioner's claim. After due consideration of the testimony provided by the numerous witnesses, the Court finds the following facts: Petitioner was originally hired by the respondent, Audubon Savings Bank as a bank teller approximately 20 years ago. Sometime, in or around 1992, the petitioner first crossed paths with another employee named R.F. At that time Ms. F was still in college and was working as a part-time teller within the bank. The testimony revealed that when Ms. F was originally hired by the bank, petitioner trained Ms. F as to the duties involved in being a bank teller. In the years that followed, petitioner was ultimately promoted to the position of being a secretary/mortgage processor within the respondent's loan department. Her duties included processing loan paperwork, and confirming payment of taxes and insurance premiums on mortgaged properties. Ms. F, after completing college, stayed in the employ of the respondent as well. She too was promoted from her original part-time teller position. Ms. F advancement within the bank was greater than that of petitioner. Ms. F advanced from being a part-time teller to loan processor, to being appointed as a branch manager of the Mt. Laurel branch of the bank. Ultimately Ms. F was promoted to the position of Loan Officer in approximately 2004 and she was transferred to the Audubon "main office" of the bank. When that transfer took place it was Ms. F who became the petitioner's immediate supervisor. When Ms. F became petitioner's supervisor, difficulties arose. Petitioner testified that she was overworked and that R. F. was prone to scream at her. Petitioner described specific events wherein R.F. allegedly screamed at her about an overtime issue and R.F. allegedly screaming at her in front of another employee. As to the latter event, petitioner testified, "There was a girl there who went to their bosses and reported it to them because they couldn't believe how horribly she stood there and yelled at me. Then she yelled at me because my cell phone rang while I was sitting there." Petitioner testified that co-workers L. R., S. E. (who both testified) and an employee named C (who did not testify) all witnessed this screaming on one occasion or another. Neither S. E. nor L. R. corroborated petitioner's claims of R. F. repeatedly screaming at her. Ms. E. testified that the office area where they all worked was relatively small. She described, "we were really just on top of each other." Based on the description of the work area, the Court finds that Ms. E. and Ms. R. had ample opportunity to observe the interactions between the petitioner and Ms. F. on a daily basis. The lack of corroboration of repeated screaming events, given the work area described, is curious to say the least. The Court also found it curious that S. E. described, ". . .a lot of provoking back and forth. . ." between the petitioner and Ms. F. After hearing petitioner's testimony, it sounded to the Court that petitioner was being berated by Ms. F. regularly. Ms. E., who testified on behalf of the petitioner, dispelled that initial impression when she testified, "I just think sometimes J.K. was looking for things, you know, to just provoke R.F. You know, it was evident at times. And we would all talk to J.K. 'J.K., let it go. Just let it go.'" Ms. E. described the overall relationship between petitioner and Ms. F. was not a one-sided situation where Ms. F. yelled at the petitioner. In fact, Ms. E. described it as , "two people that were, you know, hitting [horns]. They're two very strong minded women just not finding common ground - is the best way I can describe the situation." Ms. E. also refuted petitioner's claims of an unduly burdensome workload. Ms. E. testified that the petitioner had a lot of freedom with regard to her daily duties. Ms. E. testified "you know J.K. had a lot of flexibility there. She takes cell phone calls. She meets with her parents in the lobby when they banked there. You know, she had a nice job that way. You know R.F. never told her you have to sit at your desk, and you can't do this, or can't do that." Ms. E. also refuted petitioner's testimony that R.F. was the sole source of animosity in the office. Ms. E. testified that the petitioner frequently referred to Ms. F. (behind her back) as the "Princess" and on other occasions referred to her as the "Witch." Ms. E. also recounted that petitioner was...