photo credit: jonycunha

Kenneth A. DiMuzio, Sr., Senior Partner of the law firm of Hoffman DiMuzio participated in the annual “Hot Topics in Workers’ Compensation Law 2009” seminar, sponsored by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education. Mr. DiMuzio presented an analysis of “The Evidential Burden Required to Successfully Establish Compensability in a Claim Involving Secondary Fragrance Exposure in the Workplace”. Mr. DiMuzio was invited to participate because Hoffman DiMuzio successfully represented the petitioner in the recent “perfume case” entitled Sexton v. County of Cumberland/Cumberland Manor, 404 NJ Super 542 (App. Div. 2009). In that case, the firm successfully reversed a trial court opinion that had dismissed a claim brought for an employee whose pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease medical condition had been aggravated by exposure to perfume sprayed by a co-employee at work. On behalf of Mrs. Sexton, the firm proved that the incident did “arise out of and during the course of employment” entitling her workers’ compensation benefits for the aggravation of her pre-existing pulmonary condition.

As an interesting sidelight, the firm’s representation of Mrs. Sexton was indeed a family affair: Kenneth A. DiMuzio, Jr., tried the case before the workers’ compensation tribunal, Kenneth A. DiMuzio, Sr. wrote the appeal brief and Christine DiMuzio- Sorochen successfully argued the case before the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court.

The attached Appellate Court Brief filed on behalf of Mrs. Sexton is attached for review for a complete explanation of the issues that were successfully argued on appeal.

photo credit: strochka

A lot of controversy has arisen over the recent “perfume case”. In Sexton vs. Cumberland County/Cumberland Manor the N.J. Appellate Court held that a worker was entitled to pursue workers’ compensation benefits because perfume exposure at work aggravated a pre-existing lung condition. Contrary to the opinion of some critics, the holding does not stink. The furor expressed by those opposed to the decision is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of N.J. workers compensation law.

The N.J. workers compensation law was adopted in the early 1900s. It confiscated every worker’s right to sue his employer. The law deprives the worker and his family of the right to claim adequate compensation for work-related injury (for example, damages for pain and suffering, future wage loss, spousal claims for loss of society and services, exemplary damages, loss of enjoyment of life damages, and the like). Instead, the worker was limited to three potential benefits:  authorized medical treatment, temporary total disability, and permanent disability.  Read the rest of the story on our firm’s site…

Related articles:

• Personal injury law blog: 3 components to a good one (kevin.lexblog.com)
• Octuplets’ mother had filed two workers’ compensation claims (telegraph.co.uk)
• Octuplets Mom Got $168G In Disability (cbsnews.com)