Heget v. Christ Hosp..

• Decision Date: 07 April 1948
• Citation: 58 A.2d 615
• Parties: HEGET v. CHRIST HOSPITAL.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Common Pleas

58 A.2d 615

HEGET

v.CHRIST HOSPITAL.

Court of Common Pleas of New Jersey, Hudson County.

April 7, 1948.

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act by Doris Heget, employee, which was opposed by Christ Hospital, employer. From a determination of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau dismissing petition for lack of jurisdiction, the employee appeals.

Order in accordance with opinion.

Nathan Rabinowitz and Wm. B. McMichael, both of Paterson (Ervan F. Kushner, of Paterson, of counsel), for Petitioner-appellant.

William A. Davenport, of Newark, (Robert E. Kiernan, of Newark, of counsel), for Respondent-appellee.

DUFFY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a determination in the Workmen's Compensation Bureau wherein the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The sole question presented both at the hearing below and on this appeal is whether the relation of employer-employee existed between the parties at the time she allegedly sustained an injury. The record discloses that on February 6, 1939, petitioner was accepted by the respondent as a candidate to become a nurse, Prior to this acceptance, she had taken and successfully passed an examination for entrance to the School of Nurses conducted at the hospital and had paid the established entry fee of $75.

For the first five months, petitioner served as a probationer. Thereafter she was formally accepted by the respondent as a student nurse. This period of training was to last three years during which time she received no wage compensation except room, board and incidentals. At the completion of the training course she would receive a certificate from the hospital and be eligible to take the examination conducted by the State Board and qualify as a Registered Nurse.

From the record it appears that petitioner's duties consisted in the following; compulsory attendance at chapel at 6:30 A.M., then breakfast and ‘at 7 o'clock we are given the night report of the night nurses, we are assigned to patients, take temperatures, give bed pans, make beds, give all treatments such as enamas and so forth that is necessary, give hypodermics, intro-muscular injections and medicines.’ Petitioner testified that during the first year she worked nine hours a day when employed on the day shift and longer hours when on the night shift. The shifts were rotated by the directoress of nurses. It appears that petitioner worked six days or nights a week and was entirely subject to the control and supervision of the head nurse.

In return for the work performed petitioner received three meals a day and a room to sleep in plus six uniforms, twelve aprons, twelve kerchiefs, two pairs of shoes and various nursing and dietetics books.

In the formal petition filed in this cause petitioner alleged that she sustained an injury on March 29, 1940 by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. Respondent in its answer denied that the relationship of employer-employee existed between the parties. At the conclusion of petitioner's testimony the Deputy Commissioner sustained the contention of respondent and determined that ‘the status of preceptor and student existed between the petitioner and the respondent at the time of the alleged accident’ and thereupon dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

It is fundamental that as a necessary prerequisite for recovery under the Workmen's Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et seq., there must exist the relationship of employer-employee. Corbett...