Special Alert—COVID-19 and Work-from-Home Claims in New Jersey

In New Jersey, an employee who sustains a work injury arising out of and in the course and scope of employment is eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. The state allows compensable claims that are either from a specific traumatic accident or that arise out of a period of occupational exposure. The New Jersey statute does not require that a work injury occur on the employer’s premises.

Some of the earliest cases involving injuries that occurred at home involved the unique employment of police officers. In Kossack v. Town of Bloomfield, 63 N.J. Super. 332 (Law Div. 1960), a police officer sustained injuries while cleaning his service weapon at home. His employer required all officers to maintain their service equipment in good working order at all times. The court affirmed a finding of compensability. In DeCoursey v. Township of Randolph Police Dept., A-0915-06 (App. Div. Aug. 14, 2007), a police officer was given approval from her supervisor to have her dinner at home during her 12-hour shift. When the officer left her house to walk to her patrol car, she slipped and fell on ice. The Appellate Division affirmed compensability, finding that the petitioner was on duty the entire time of her shift and that it was an employer-approved policy to allow its officers to travel outside the municipality for meals.

In Chaverri v. Cace Trucking, Inc., No. A-3619-07T2 (App. Div. Mar. 26, 2010), the petitioner worked as a truck driver and entered into a lease agreement with the employer. As part of the agreement, Chaverri was required to maintain his rig at his own expense. While performing maintenance on his truck while at home on the weekend, he sustained an eye injury. Originally, the trial judge denied compensability, finding that maintaining the vehicle on his own premises did not benefit the employer. However, the Appellate Division reversed, relying on the fact that the rig’s maintenance was an essential function of the employment as required under the agreement. Therefore, an injury sustained while maintaining the equipment was compensable.

In Benvenutti v. Scholastic Bus Co., No. A-3732-11 (App. Div. Apr. 4, 2013), the petitioner worked as a school bus driver. When she was not driving the bus, she was required to clean the bus and inspect the seatbelts after each use. The employer allowed the petitioner to clean the bus off premises. She tripped over a mat while exiting the bus just after she finished cleaning it. The Appellate Division affirmed compensability, finding that the definition of employment under Section 36 is “multi-faceted” and allows for compensability where an employee is engaged in job duties away from the employer’s premises.

In 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed a case involving a heart attack claim that occurred from occupational exposure at home. In Renner v. AT&T, 218 N.J. 435 (2014), the petitioner was a manager and worked from home three days per week. The testimony given by the petitioner’s witnesses suggested the petitioner worked overnight on a project. She died from a pulmonary embolism the next morning. The case was up and down on appeal several times. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed a finding of compensability on the basis that the petitioner did not meet her higher burden of proof for cerebrovascular claims. However, the court did not distinguish or create any special rules for cerebrovascular claims that occur at home versus ones that occur on the employer’s premises, even though it could have done so.           

Given the current state of the case law in New Jersey, as well as advancements in technology and changes in the business model, injuries that occur at home will become a more prevalent issue. This will be a growing problem since New Jersey workers’ compensation law is viewed very liberally and it is very difficult to control/define the home office area. While each case is fact-sensitive, it is recommended that employers attempt to limit the at-home activities and locations where a petitioner can work. In addition, limit the time of day when work can be performed. Work output should be centrally monitored to help track and possibly refute a claim, if appropriate. A reported at-home work injury will require a higher level of investigation, and employers should create methods now to investigate these claims before they occur.

_{What's Hot in Workers' Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}