New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed Appellate Division’s findings, noting the petitioner was in the course and scope of his employment under the Authorized Vehicle Rule as he was using a company car expressly authorized by the employer.

The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, reinstated the claim petition, and remanded for further proceedings. By way of quick background, the judge of compensation dismissed the petitioner’s claim and denied his motion for medical benefits, with prejudice, for lack of compensability. The judge found that the petitioner was not acting within the course and scope of employment when the incident occurred. Specifically, the petitioner was traveling from his home in a company-owned vehicle to the employer’s shop to restock chemicals used for work. The employer had directed its employees to not carry large quantities of chemicals in their vehicles, preferred that its employees not store chemicals in the vehicles overnight, and preferred that its employees pick up the chemicals in the mornings as needed. 

The Appellate Division found that the judge erred in relying upon a prior case which had found an incident not compensable where the petitioner was traveling home at the end of the workday for a personal activity. In that matter, the petitioner was not performing a work-related activity on business authorized by the employer. 

The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s findings, noting the petitioner was in the course and scope of his employment under the authorized vehicle rule as he was using a car company expressly authorized by the employer.
 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 1, January 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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 © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, 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.}