The Appellate Division has pulled in the reins regarding the recent trend to dismiss occupational claims in the event they are filed more than two years after the employee is aware of his or her condition and its relationship to job duties.
In Karran Rajpaul vs. McDonald’s Corporation, Unpublished Appellate Division Decision (decided 8/28/2015), the employee worked as a maintenance man for McDonald’s from August 1995 until November 2005. Beginning in 1999, he began to experience pain in his shoulders, wrists and elbows which led him to seek treatment at Somerset Family Practice. In 2001, he was diagnosed with bilateral bicipital tendinitis which resolved with treatment. He continued to work for McDonald’s for the next four years.
In June 2005, the employee returned to Somerset Family Practice seeking additional treatment for his left shoulder. In November 2005, he left McDonald’s to work elsewhere. In June 2006, he was diagnosed with a left shoulder rotator cuff tear following an MRI and underwent surgery. Following the surgery, the former McDonald’s employee filed a formal Claim Petition on December 14, 2006 seeking benefits against McDonald’s for the torn left rotator cuff tear.
McDonald’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34: 15-34 was granted. The Judge concluded that there was no dispute that the man was aware of the condition of his left shoulder as far back as 2001 and yet did not file a claim against his employer until 2006. The employee’s argument was that he was not aware of the condition of a torn rotator cuff until 2006.
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the decision of the Judge. The Court found that the employee’s knowledge and previous treatment for tendinitis was not sufficient to trigger the responsibility to file a claim for the subsequent diagnosis of a torn rotator cuff. The Court rejected the reliance upon the decision in Huntoon (an unpublished Appellate Division Decision from July 28, 2010) where the employee was aware of his condition of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome by 2003, but failed to file a claim until 2007. Here, the difference between tendinitis and a rotator cuff tear was too distinct and without medical evidence establishing that the employee was aware of the rotator cuff tear. The Court did not agree that the Statute of Limitations had been violated.
Comment: This case represents the parameters based upon which a Statute of Limitations defense may be successful. That is, unless the petitioner/employee is aware of the exact diagnosis of a more significant condition, he or she will have an argument that a subsequent worsening of the condition leading to a more significant and distinct diagnosis may provide a defense to the two year statute. Given the fact that the tendinitis appears to have resolved, the Court’s decision finding the statute began to run again once the torn rotator cuff was diagnosed appears reasonable.
For more information, please contact Jeffrey D. Newby at jnewby@wglaw.com or 856.667.5804.