A Capehart Scatchard Blog

Employee’s Failure to Pursue Rights in Workers’ Compensation Court Precludes a Civil Suit for Failure to Accommodate under the ADA and LAD

By on March 28, 2019 in Policy with 0 Comments

As practitioners well know, many ADA law suits begin with a workers’ compensation injury.  But where is the line between an issue that must be handled in workers’ compensation and one that can be brought in civil court?  That was the issue that the New Jersey Supreme Court decided on March 25, 2019 in Caraballo v. City of Jersey City Police Department (A-71-17) (080467).

Caraballo joined the Jersey City Police Department (hereinafter JCPD) as a police officer in February 1973.  He injured his hands, back, and legs in August 1999 during a motor vehicle accident and filed a workers’ compensation claim.  He underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery on his left knee.

Two city-appointed physicians gave opinions that Caraballo would eventually need bilateral knee replacement surgery.  Caraballo’s workers’ compensation attorney contacted defense counsel for JCPD in 2008 and requested approval for the knee replacement surgery. Caraballo’s attorney also requested a specific physician to perform the surgery, noting that Risk Management had approved that physician.

Surgery did not take place for reasons that are not clear in the opinion.  In August 2010, Caraballo put in his retirement papers with the New Jersey Division of Pensions and Benefits effective March 1, 2011. Lieutenant John McLellan of the JCPD Medical Bureau was of the impression that Caraballo did not  intend to pursue the surgery.  McLellan also noted that Caraballo refused to see a certain doctor “who would be able to determine unequivocally whether or not he should have the surgery.”

Caraballo retired on March 1, 2011.  Thereafter Risk Management authorized an orthopedic surgeon to evaluate Caraballo for bilateral knee replacement surgery.  The doctor told Caraballo to contact the office to pick a date for surgery pending medical and cardiac clearance.  However, Caraballo never called the doctor’s office to schedule a date for surgery.

On March 4, 2013, Caraballo finally settled his workers’ compensation claim.  A short time later, he brought a civil suit alleging that the City violated his rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination for failing to authorized the knee replacement surgery and failing to make reasonable accommodations to his disability.

The trial court ruled against Caraballo because he failed to enforce his rights to have knee surgery in workers’ compensation court.  Apparently, he never filed a motion for medical and temporary disability benefits. The Appellate Division reversed in favor of Caraballo.  The Appellate Division observed that Caraballo may have been able to perform the essential functions of his job had he obtained a reasonable accommodation of knee surgery.

The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted certification and reversed the Appellate Division.  The Court relied on prior case law to the effect that an employee must first exhaust all administrative remedies under workers’ compensation before seeking enforcement in the Law Division.  The Court said:

Here, Caraballo filed his workers’ compensation claim in 2001, retired in 2011, and settled his claim with the JCPD in 2013.  In the interim, Caraballo contacted Risk Management several times to obtain authorization for double knee replacement surgery but never sought to enforce his right to the surgery in the workers’ compensation court.  Caraballo’s failure to utilize the Act’s administrative remedies to obtain knee replacement surgery precludes his failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD.

The court next went on to consider whether surgery can be considered a reasonable accommodation in New Jersey. The court first cited to the language in the LAD and ADA for specific examples of reasonable accommodation:  (i) making facilities used by employees readily accessible and usable by people with disabilities; (ii) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules or leaves of absence; (iii) acquisition or modification of equipment or devices; and (iv) job reassignment and other similar actions.

The Court observed that no New Jersey case prior to Caraballo had ever addressed the question of whether medical treatment qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the LAD.  A case in Connecticut was instructive to the Court, Desmond v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 331, 350 (D. Conn. 2010).  In that case the Connecticut District Court ruled against a workers’ compensation plaintiff who argued that in order to continue working she would need medical treatment, including pain management and physical therapy.  The Connecticut Court held that a reasonable accommodation must relate to workplace barriers.  There was no responsibility under the ADA or state civil rights law to make sure an injured employee is receiving appropriate medical treatment.

The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with the ruling in Desmond:

The medical procedure sought by Caraballo – his double knee replacement surgery – is neither a modification to the work environment nor a removal of workplace barriers.  Rather, it is a means to treat or mitigate the effects of his injuries, like the treatments at issue in Desmond.  We therefore find it consistent with the LAD, the ADA, and their regulations that Caraballo’s total knee replacement surgery cannot qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the LAD.

This case is truly significant for practitioners, carriers, third party administrators and workers’ compensation professionals.  Had the ruling gone the other way, employees would have been able to pursue civil action against employers for potential denial of benefits in workers’ compensation. The Court is undoubtedly correct that this would violate the basic rule that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for injured workers regarding medical benefits.

Thanks to Rick Rubenstein, Esq. for bringing this case to our attention.


Tags: , ,

About the Author

About the Author:

John H. Geaney, a shareholder and co-chair of Capehart Scatchard's Workers' Compensation department, began an email newsletter entitled Currents in Workers’ Compensation, ADA and FMLA in 2001 in order to keep clients and readers informed on leading developments in these three areas of law. Since that time he has written over 500 newsletter updates.

Mr. Geaney is the author of Geaney’s New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Manual for Practitioners, Adjusters & Employers. The manual is distributed by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education (NJICLE). He also authored an ADA and FMLA manual as distributed by NJICLE. If you are interested in purchasing the manual, please contact NJICLE at 732-214-8500 or visit their website at www.njicle.com.

Mr. Geaney represents employers in the defense of workers’ compensation, ADA and FMLA matters. He is a Fellow of the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers of the American Bar Association and is certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a workers’ compensation law attorney. He is one of two firm representatives to the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. He has served on the Executive Committee of Capehart Scatchard for over ten (10) years.

A graduate of Holy Cross College summa cum laude, Mr. Geaney obtained his law degree from Boston College Law School. He has been named a “Super Lawyer” by his peers and Law and Politics. He serves as Vice President of the Friends of MEND, the fundraising arm of a local charitable organization devoted to promoting affordable housing.

Capehart Scatchard is a full service law firm with offices in Mt. Laurel and Trenton, New Jersey. The firm represents employers and businesses in a wide variety of areas, including workers’ compensation, civil litigation, labor, environmental, business, estates and governmental affairs.


Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.