Cheryl Binosa represents national staffing agencies, trucking companies, retail stores, and manufacturers in workers’ compensation matters across northern New Jersey.
Cheryl handles all aspects of New Jersey workers’ compensation claims including those related to medical and temporary disability, permanent partial and permanent total disability issues, and Section 20 settlements. She also counsels her clients on claims regarding Medicare and Medicaid set-asides. Her experience includes negotiating medical bills involving medical provider applications filed both in New Jersey and New York. Cheryl has a decade of experience in drafting persuasive Appellate briefs and has a proven track record of success in arguing cases before the Appellate Division.
Before coming to Weber Gallagher, Cheryl worked with insurance firms’ special investigation units in identifying, investigating, and prosecuting fraudulent claims in New Jersey. Her experience also includes defending personal injury protection (PIP)/no-fault cases in the National Arbitration Forum and New Jersey Superior Court.
Successfully defended a claim before the Appellate Division affirming a Trial Court's decision that a Bihler operator did not suffer hearing loss during the course and scope of his employment. The Judge of Compensation found a lack of credible evidence to prove petitioner suffered physical injuries and hearing loss as a result of excessive noise exposure based on petitioner’s inconsistent testimony, the records of the treating doctors, and petitioner’s expert testimony, which provided no basis for the diagnosis, as well as an inconsistent narrative of the facts of the case. The Appellate Court held that the judge's factual and credibility findings were amply supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, and there was no basis to disturb them.
Successfully tried a Motion for lack of coverage. In this matter, petitioner alleged injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident (MVA.) The claim was denied because petitioner, the owner of the company, had excluded himself from coverage under the policy. Nonetheless, following the accident, petitioner claimed that he did not know that he specifically excluded himself from coverage. Emails were submitted to the court indicating that petitioner was given information about different policy premiums for coverage and non-coverage. The emails further indicated that he had previously excluded himself on an earlier policy. The motion was tried and testimony was taken both from the insurance broker and the petitioner. The Judge did not find the petitioner credible noting that he frequently changed his answers when confronted with documents that contradicted his assertions. As such, the Judge granted our dismissal with prejudice. Respondent avoided being on the hook for payment of medical treatment for multiple injuries and temporary disability benefits.
Secured a trial win on a matter which involved an Application for Review and/or Modification of a Formal Award. The original claim resolved in 2017 for 7.5% of partial total for orthopedic disability to the right shoulder and right foot. The petitioner reopened the matter alleging a need for additional treatment and an increase in disability. The petitioner was not seeking any additional treatment and therefore both parties conducted updated permanency examinations. The petitioner’s expert found an increase in disability while our expert found no increase in disability.
Following the exchange of reports, the Judge recommended a settlement recommendation of $7,500.00 under Section20. The petitioner was unwilling to settle, and the parties agreed to move to trial.
During her testimony, the petitioner testified that her increased complaints were largely due to body parts not part of her original settlement, specifically her right hand and right arm. Additionally, the petitioner was diagnosed with cancer 2018, which prevented her from doing things and only allowed her to just lay down to receive chemo, not moving her arm and not turning it. The petitioner further noted that her right arm became swollen in 2018, the same year of her cancer diagnosis. She also testified that she had a port-a-cath near her right shoulder.
The petitioner’s expert testified that he justified an increase in disability due to her loss of range of motion and her complaints. However, the doctor noted he could not differentiate whether the increase in disability had anything to do with petitioner’s port-a cath in her shoulder due to cancer, her diabetes, or her work injury. Our expert concluded that his opinion was unchanged and that the right shoulder actually had increased range of motion.
The Judge found our expert’s testimony more credible, and that petitioner did not meet the burden of proof that she had an increase in disability. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Prior results cannot and do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter that we or any lawyer may be retained to handle.
© 2026 Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby LLP. All Rights Reserved.
