Martinez v. W. G. Fritz Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1933
• Parties: MARTINEZ v. W. G. FRITZ CO., Inc.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Common Pleas

165 A. 873

MARTINEZ

v. W. G. FRITZ CO., Inc.

Court of Common Pleas of New Jersey, Essex County.

May 1, 1933.

Proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act by Joseph Martinez, claimant, opposed by W. G. Fritz Company, Inc., employer. From an order dismissing claimant's petition, claimant appeals.

Petition dismissed.

David Roskein, of Newark, for appellant.

Edwin Joseph O'Brien, of Newark, for appellee.

HARTSHORNE, Judge.

The principal question in this case is as to the effect to be given to a previous award to petitioner by the Industrial Board of New York state, for the same accident here involved. Petitioner was injured in Saratoga, but there was a question of fact as to whether the employment contract arose in New Jersey of in New York, so that the parties press the question of the jurisdiction of the New York and New Jersey authorities.

The accident occurred September 5, 1930, proceedings were promptly instituted in New York, petitioner appearing there, he was paid compensation concurrently, and, on May 12, 1931, the compensation was ordered paid to date and the case closed out "in full settlement of the claim." Ten days later he filed his New Jersey petition for the same accidental injury. This was dismissed and is now on appeal, the above facts having been proven before the New Jersey Bureau.

Certain preliminary questions may be briefly disposed of. In the first place, the fact that the record of the New York Industrial Board has not been exemplified is waived, but objection to its consideration is made on the ground that the same was not proven by respondent before the New Jersey Bureau until eleven months after the New Jersey Bureau had reserved decision. When such record was received, petitioner was at the same time given an opportunity to present further proof, which he did not do. This subsequent reception of evidence by the bureau was clearly within its power, since the deputy commissioner there sat both as court and jury with the right to take additional testimony until decision was rendered.

Not only did petitioner seek his own forum in New York state and receive full compensation there, according to the laws of that state, for the cause of action he now claims, but he took no appeal from the decision of the New York board, and the New York statute provides: "An award or decision of the board shall be final and conclusive * * * unless reversed or modified on appeal." Workmen's Compensation Law N. Y. (Laws 1913 [Ex. Sess.], chap. 816, article 2, § 23, re-enacted by Laws 1922, c. 615 [Consol. Laws, c. 67], § 23); Sperduto v. New York City Interborough Railway, 186 App. Div. 145, 173 N. Y. S. 834. Petitioner does not attack the jurisdiction of the New York board, nor can he while he retains the fruits of its award. The mere fact that, almost a year after the New York decision, on a belated application to pay a medical bill, the New York board referred to a jurisdictional question then pending in New Jersey in the case (i. e., the present proceedings) cannot affect the finality of the New York decision, particularly since the New York board ordered the medical bill paid by the respondent in New York. No amount or kind of proceedings in New Jersey can affect the finality of the New York judgment per se, when standing without appeal.

Obviously, petitioner cannot receive two satisfactions for the...