CANDICE LINZMAYER VS. KEYPORT BOARD OF EDUCATION(NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION), A-3315-15T2

Petitioner Candice Linzmayer, a high-school math teacher, alleged a student assaulted her in the girls’ locker room on January 14, 2011, causing physical (neck/back/contusions) and psychological injuries (anxiety/PTSD).
Petitioner reported the incident to school administrators and police; the student was suspended ten days. Petitioner did not seek workers’ compensation treatment until filing claims in April 2012.
At trial before a Workers’ Compensation judge, petitioner presented lay witnesses (teacher-union officials) and two medical experts (orthopedics and psychiatry) supporting work-related physical and psychiatric injuries and need for treatment.
Employer (Keyport Board of Education) acknowledged the incident but disputed injury causation; it presented the principal and vice-principal (who observed no injuries) and two medical experts who found no work-related need for ongoing treatment.
The compensation judge found petitioner and her experts not credible, credited the employer’s experts, and concluded petitioner’s conditions were not caused by the January 2011 incident; he denied medical and temporary disability benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of medical treatment was against the weight of the evidence	Linzmayer: Judge misweighed conflicting expert testimony; her experts showed work-related injuries and need for treatment	Employer: Court properly credited its experts who examined petitioner, reviewed records, and found no causal link	Affirmed — trial judge’s credibility determinations and expert-choice supported by competent evidence
Whether principal’s testimony was improper because he was not present at the incident	Linzmayer: Principal lacked firsthand knowledge; relying on his testimony was error	Employer: Principal testified to petitioner’s report; that falls within party-opponent hearsay exception	Affirmed — principal’s testimony admissible as party-opponent hearsay and properly considered

Lindquist v. City of Jersey City Fire Dept., 175 N.J. 244 (2003) (standard of appellate review of Workers’ Compensation factual findings)
Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589 (1965) (credibility deference to factfinder)
Bellino v. Verizon Wireless, 435 N.J. Super. 85 (App. Div. 2014) (deference to compensation judge’s weighing of medical evidence)
Ramos v. M&F Fashions, Inc., 154 N.J. 583 (1998) (judge’s role in evaluating expert testimony)
Perez v. Monmouth Cablevision, 278 N.J. Super. 275 (App. Div. 1994) (standard for disturbing factual findings)
Smith v. John L. Montgomery Nursing Home, 327 N.J. Super. 575 (App. Div. 2000) (appellate reluctance to reverse based on choice between competing medical opinions)
Kaneh v. Sunshine Biscuits, 321 N.J. Super. 507 (App. Div. 1999) (factfinder not bound by conclusory opinions of medical experts)