Anesthesia Assocs. of Morristown v. Weinstein Supply Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 October 2020
• Docket Number: DOCKET NO. A-5718-18T4,DOCKET NO. A-5033-18T4
• Parties: ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES OF MORRISTOWN, PA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WEINSTEIN SUPPLY CORPORATION, Respondent-Respondent. SURGICARE OF JERSEY CITY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WALDBAUMS, Respondent-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES OF MORRISTOWN, PA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WEINSTEIN SUPPLY CORPORATION, Respondent-Respondent.

SURGICARE OF JERSEY CITY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WALDBAUMS, Respondent-Respondent.

DOCKET NO. A-5033-18T4

DOCKET NO. A-5718-18T4

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued telephonically August 4, 2020

October 7, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

Before Judges Rothstadt and Firko.

On appeal from the Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, Claim Petition Nos. 2018-29163 and 2018-19349.

Michael J. Smikun argued the cause for appellant Anesthesia Associates of Morristown, PA (Callagy Law, PC, attorneys; Rajat Bhardwaj, on the briefs).

Donna J. Sova argued the cause for respondent Weinstein Supply Corporation (Viscomi & Lyons, attorneys; Donna J. Sova, on the brief).

Rajat Bhardwaj argued the cause for appellant Surgicare of Jersey City (Callagy Law, PC, attorneys; Rajat Bhardwaj, on the briefs).

Francis W. Worthington argued the cause for respondent Waldbaums (Worthington & Worthington, LLC, attorneys; Francis W. Worthington, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In these two appeals that we calendared back to back and have consolidated for the purpose of writing one opinion, we are asked to determine whether New Jersey medical providers can file an independent claim under the New Jersey's Workers Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146, to recover payment for their services from their patients' employers, where the patients lived and worked outside of New Jersey, were injured outside of New Jersey, and filed workers' compensation claims in their home states that resulted in payments being made to their New Jersey providers. For the reasons thatfollow, we conclude that the New Jersey medical provider cannot maintain an action under the WCA under these circumstances.

Petitioners Anesthesia Associates of Morristown, PA (AAM) and Surgicare of Jersey City (SJC), both appeal from orders issued by two judges of compensation dismissing their medical provider claims (MPC) for lack of jurisdiction. AAM argues that the judge of compensation's decision was an "extraordinarily brazen, unsupportable misuse of authority," while SJC contends the judge's decision in its case was "incoherent," and "preposterous."

According to both providers, the WCA grants the Division of Workers' Compensation (Division) with broad exclusive jurisdiction over MPCs, even if there is no claim for compensation by an injured employee pending in New Jersey. Additionally, they argue MPCs are separate causes of action, rooted in breach of contract "over which the State of New Jersey has jurisdiction through the Division," and case law determining jurisdiction over injured employee claims is not binding. Also, in SJC's matter, it contends the judge of compensation, sua sponte, improperly dismissed its claim because of a lack of personal jurisdiction, but in doing so, the judge properly "conced[ed] that the Division may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over" its claim. We find no merit to any of these contentions.

I.

A.

The material facts of each claim are generally undisputed. In AAM's matter filed under docket number A-5033-18, the employee suffered compensable work-related injuries in an accident in 1998. The accident took place in Pennsylvania, the injured worker was a Pennsylvania resident, and the employer, respondent Weinstein Supply Corporation (Weinstein), was based in Pennsylvania. The injured worker filed a claim with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Worker's Compensation (PABWC).

On March 22, 2018, AAM provided services to the injured worker at a New Jersey hospital during a procedure. It then submitted a claim to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (PDOLI) and received payment of $1,070.30 in accordance with the PDOLI fee schedule.¹ AAM did not challenge or otherwise appeal the award. AAM submitted a Health Insurance Claim Form for $12,992 to Liberty Mutual Insurance (Liberty), Weinstein's workers' compensation insurance carrier, seeking payment of the balance it originally billed.

When the claim was not paid, on October 25, 2018, AAM initiated its MPC by filing a Medical Provider Application for Payment (MPAP) with the Division, even though, as stated in the MPAP, there was no pending workers' compensation claim filed in New Jersey by the employee.² Like all MPAPs, the document stated that AAM alleged that "the Employee sustained an injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his/her employment with Respondent, [that was] compensable under [the WCA]."

Weinstein filed an Answer denying that the Division had jurisdiction and disclosing that the employee had filed a claim in Pennsylvania. It later filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which AAM opposed. In support of its motion, Weinstein filed a certification from its counsel setting forth the facts that demonstrated there was no connection between New Jersey and the injured employee, who had filed a claim in Pennsylvania, or his employer. In opposition, AAM filed a brief that did not dispute any of the material facts, but argued that the court of compensation had jurisdiction over the claim becauseN.J.S.A. 34:15-15 vested the Division with "exclusive jurisdiction for any disputed medical charge[,] and because New Jersey had a substantial interest in the subject matter - the payment of New Jersey medical providers' bills."

On June 19, 2019, the judge of compensation granted Weinstein's motion and dismissed AAM's claim for lack of jurisdiction. In her written decision, the judge rejected AAM's broad reading of N.J.S.A. 34:15-15, finding that it would distort the meaning of the statute. In her view, "[i]t should go without saying that when the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 to give the workers' compensation court exclusive jurisdiction for any disputed charges arising from any claim for a work related injury or illness[,] that the claim had to be one compensable under New Jersey law." She concluded that the provider's claim was "derivative," of the injured worker's claim.

Applying the six "Larson factors," as relied upon by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Williams v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 175 N.J. 82, 87-88 (2003) (establishing the proper jurisdictional analysis for an employee's occupational disease claim and discussing the common factors used to confer jurisdiction) (citing 9 Lex K. Larson et al., Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, §142.01 (Matthew Bender, rev. ed. 2000)), to determine whether New Jersey had jurisdiction, the judge found that under the circumstances,

[n]one of these possible bases to assert New Jersey jurisdiction exist [because the employee] lived in [Pennsylvania], worked in [Pennsylvania], and the accident occurred in [Pennsylvania]. The contract of hire occurred in [Pennsylvania]. No contract exits between [AAM] and Weinstein. The only connection to New Jersey is that [the employee] underwent one day of medical treatment with [AAM] in New Jersey.

Citing to Wenzl v. Zantop Air Transport Inc., 94 N.J. Super. 326, 334 (Law Div.), aff'd o.b., 97 N.J. Super. 264 (App. Div. 1967) (explaining that an employee's in-state domicile alone, without any employment contacts, is insufficient to confer jurisdiction in New Jersey), the judge stated that as our courts have held "a petitioner's New Jersey residence alone is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction[, c]learly one day of treatment in New Jersey is insufficient to grant New Jersey jurisdiction over this [claim]." The judge continued by distinguishing the case before her from those argued by AAM in opposition to Weinstein's motion before concluding that the claim had to be dismissed. This appeal followed.³

B.

Turning to SJC's matter filed under docket number A-5718-18, the facts are similar. The injured employee, a resident of New York, who had been hired in New York by his employer, Stop & Shop, suffered a compensable injury as a result of a work-related accident at work in Brooklyn, New York on February 20, 2010. The injured employee filed a workers' compensation claim in New York. On January 5, 2017, the employee's New York physician filed with the Workers' Compensation Board of New York (WCBNY) a request for authorization for the employee to undergo surgery, listing the injured worker's employer as Stop & Shop at a Brooklyn, New York address.

On March 6, 2017, the WCBNY determined that the injured employee had an ongoing medical disability and that surgery was necessary. The WCBNY's determination identified the employer as Stop & Shop and stated that the "employer is liable for the payment of these services in accordance with" New York law. On August 11, 2017, the employee underwent surgery at SJC's facility in Jersey City. SJC thereafter received a payment of $20,085.28 through the WCBNY.

On July 17, 2018, SJC initiated its MPC by filing a MPAP with the Division that contained the same allegation as in AAM's MPAP about theworker's injury being compensable under the WCA, and further stated it billed $252,900 for services rendered to the employee and that it had been paid $20,085.28. The MPAP identified respondent Waldbaum's, located in Montvale, as the employer.⁴

Waldbaum's filed an answer averring that SJC had been paid "for all benefits due" to it. On August 2, 2018, it also filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In support of its motion it filed a certification from counsel attesting to the facts that established New Jersey had no relation to the employee's injury or claim and for that reason SJC's claim should be dismissed. Citing to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15, Waldbaum's argued that the WCA "only allows . . . Applications for Payment when the injured employee has a cognizable...