LUIS FONSECA VS. INTERTEK ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., ETC. VS. INTERTEK(DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION)
A-4574-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Luis Fonseca, employed by Intertek as a petroleum inspector, was injured in an automobile accident on September 24, 2011.
- Fonseca claimed he was returning to the Hess Port Reading Terminal to complete work after dropping petroleum samples at Intertek's lab when the accident occurred.
- Intertek contended Fonseca had finished for the night and was not returning to the job site; a Movement Summary Report and witness testimony supported this view.
- Hearing focused solely on compensability; testimony from Fonseca, co-worker Juan Garabito, and Intertek dispatcher Edward Lauer was considered over multiple days.
- The Judge of Compensation found Fonseca and Garabito not credible, credited Lauer, and concluded Fonseca was not engaged in the direct performance of assigned duties when injured; Allstate’s subrogation claim for PIP reimbursement was likewise dismissed.
- Fonseca and Allstate appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed, applying deferential review to credibility findings and legal standards for "arising out of and in the course of employment."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether accident occurred in course of employment | Fonseca: was returning to Hess to complete work assignments | Intertek: Fonseca had completed work and was leaving for the night | Held: JWC credited Intertek; accident not compensable |
| Whether "on-call" status makes injury compensable | Fonseca/Allstate: being on-call renders injury compensable | Intertek: no showing of required disruption or directive making him on-duty | Held: Court rejected on-call argument; insufficient proof and not raised below |
| Admission of collective bargaining agreement | Fonseca: CBA demonstrates on-call duties and should be admitted | Intertek: CBA unauthenticated and not specific to Fonseca | Held: Exclusion affirmed; JWC did not abuse discretion |
| Standard of appellate review for credibility findings | Fonseca: invites reversal of compensability | Intertek: urges deference to JWC credibility findings | Held: Appellate review defers to JWC credibility; findings supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindquist v. City of Jersey City Fire Dep't, 175 N.J. 244 (2003) (scope of appellate review in workers' compensation matters)
- Hersh v. Cty. of Morris, 217 N.J. 236 (2014) (requirement that injuries arise out of and in the course of employment)
- Sabat v. Fedders Corp., 75 N.J. 444 (1978) (on-call compensability requires more than mere availability)
- Watson v. Nassau Inn, 74 N.J. 155 (1977) (discussing pre-amendment going-and-coming rule)
- Jumpp v. City of Ventnor, 177 N.J. 470 (2003) (tracing legislative amendment narrowing compensability under N.J.S.A. 34:15-36)