BEVERLY GOULD VS. CORIZON HEALTH OF NJ(NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, DIVISION OFWORKERS' COMPENSATION), A-0438-15T1

Background

Beverly Gould, a licensed nurse employed by Corizon, was injured when she tripped in the Burlington County-owned parking lot adjacent to the Pemberton Correctional Work Release Center after finishing her shift.
The parking lot was the only lot available to employees, visitors, and contractors, fenced and accessed via a long road; Burlington County maintained the lot.
Gould filed a workers’ compensation claim against Corizon (and initially added Burlington County); Corizon contested compensability and ownership/control.
The judge of compensation found the lot part of Gould’s workplace, concluded her injury arose out of and in the course of employment, and awarded benefits; Burlington County was dismissed.
On appeal, Corizon argued the injury occurred off-premises and outside its control; Gould argued the lot was part of her workplace (and alternatively that she was a special employee).
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the parking lot was within Gould’s workplace under the premises rule because employees were required to use it and it functioned as dedicated workplace parking despite county ownership.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gould’s injury arose "out of and in the course of employment" under the WCA/premises rule	Gould: parking lot was part of her workplace; her workday began/ended there since it was the only employee parking and access was restricted	Corizon: injury occurred after shift ended, off employer premises; Corizon did not own or control the lot	Held: Compensable — parking lot was part of the premises; Gould’s workday encompassed arrival/departure from that lot
Whether Corizon exercised sufficient control over the parking area to trigger employer liability	Gould: Corizon’s contractual obligations and facility operations made the lot effectively part of workplace; employees had no alternative parking	Corizon: Burlington County owned/maintained the lot; Corizon did not own, maintain, or exclusively control it	Held: Employer control not limited to ownership — lot’s dedicated use and lack of alternative parking meant workplace included the lot
Applicability of the 1979 WCA amendment (premises rule) vs. special-mission exception	Gould: even if premises rule applies, the special-mission exception also covers her because she was on duty and not commuting	Corizon: employee had completed duties and was commuting home; special mission inapplicable	Held: Court affirmed on premises-control grounds and did not need to decide special-mission issue (but judge below had also relied on special mission)
Whether Burlington County was a dual or special employer	Gould (in cross-appeal): argued she should be deemed a special employee of Burlington County as well	Burlington County/Corizon: County was not a dual employer; Corizon remained employer of record	Held: Judge dismissed Burlington County as employer; Appellate Division affirmed dismissal — not a dual/special employer in this record

Key Cases Cited

Zelasko v. Refrigerated Food Express, 128 N.J. 329 (1992) (defines special mission exception elements)
Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 111 N.J. 89 (1988) (employer control over parking/ingress can make lot part of premises)
Hersh v. Cty. of Morris, 217 N.J. 236 (2014) (employer control is critical to premises rule; no control over public street meant no compensation)
Kristiansen v. Morgan, 153 N.J. 298 (1997) (explains premises rule and situs/control inquiry)
Bradley v. State, 344 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 2001) (employer-directed ingress/egress to county parking made injuries compensable)