The Appellate Court made a decision in Barrett v. Hackensack University Medical Center, N.J. Super. A-3441-22 (App. Div. 2024) regarding the extent of a compensable accident in workers’ compensation.

This case was not a workers’ compensation claim, but it required the courts to interpret New Jersey Workers’ Compensation law.  The case arrived in Appellate Court after the Plaintiffs, Vilma and Albert Barrett, appealed a summary judgment decision by the trial court in their case against Hackensack University Medical Center (HUMC).  Plaintiff Vilma Barrett is an employee of HUMC, and she sued HUMC due to an injury she suffered on their premises.  On May 31, 2021, she ended her shift with HUMC at 7:00 a.m.  Her son came to pick her up, but on this day, her son complained of pain and numbness.  Plaintiff and her son parked the car in HUMC’s garage and went to the emergency room.  Three and a half hours later, Plaintiff’s son was discharged and when Plaintiff was walking to her car, she tripped and fell in the garage.  She suffered a patella tendon fracture and sprained her medical collateral ligament.

Plaintiff did not file for workers’ compensation benefits, but filed a complaint against HUMC for negligence and loss of consortium.  The trial court granted summary judgment to HUMC because the court interpreted New Jersey Workers’ Compensation law to bar the suit because it believed Plaintiff was still working for HUMC when she was injured.

Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment decision.  The Appellate Division began its analysis with skepticism that this case was a workers’ compensation claim.  They pointed to the fact that workers’ compensation is the remedy when the injury arises out of and in the course of employment.  Although the injury occurred on HUMC’s premises, there was a dispute as to whether the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.

To get to the bottom of this issue, the Appellate Division referred to a decision in Zahner v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 321 N.J. Super. 471, 477 (App. Div. 2003).  Zahner held that when an employee is not actively working for her employer at the time of injuries and remained on the premises to conduct personal errands on her own time, then the injury is not compensable under Workers’ Compensation law.  Plaintiff’s decision to stay on the premises was because of her son’s visit to the emergency room, which is a personal reason not related to her employment.  This means Plaintiff was not in the course of her employment when she tripped and fell in HUMC’s garage.

The Court found that where the injury occurred was not the most important fact to consider.  Plaintiff stayed at the hospital for her son to receive emergency room treatment for several hours after her shift ended.  She also did some personal shopping at the employer’s store.  The Appellate Division found the injury to be completely personal in nature without any connection to Plaintiff’s employment.  They reversed and remanded the case to the trial court and vacated the summary judgment ruling.

If you have any questions about this case, please feel free to contact Nick Brago, Esq. at nbrago@c-wlaw.com or (856) 761-3800.

Disclaimer

The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction.  By reading this article, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and Cipriani & Werner, P.C. or any of our attorneys.  No information contained in this article should be construed as legal advice from Cipriani & Werner, P.C. or the individual authors.