The Perfume Decision – A Workers’ Compensation Case
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)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f2512073-1f71-43b5-a138-fe39f56dd68f)
Comments
2 Comments on The Perfume Decision – A Workers’ Compensation Case
-
Jessica on
Fri, 24th Apr 2009 4:40 pm
-
Hoffman · DiMuzio on
Tue, 27th Oct 2009 6:13 pm
Wow, very interesting Ken 
[...] 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 [...]
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!