From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roderick v. Taxi & Limousine Three, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Apr 24, 2015
DOCKET NO. A-3789-13T4 (App. Div. Apr. 24, 2015)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-3789-13T4

04-24-2015

ARMAND RODERICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TAXI & LIMOUSINE THREE, LLC, Respondent-Respondent.

Gill & Chamas, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Richard T. Smith, on the brief). Cooper Levenson, P.A., attorneys for respondent (Walter J. LaCon, on the brief).


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Nugent. On appeal from Division of Workers Compensation, Docket No. 2008-28878. Gill & Chamas, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Richard T. Smith, on the brief). Cooper Levenson, P.A., attorneys for respondent (Walter J. LaCon, on the brief). PER CURIAM

In this workers' compensation case, petitioner Armand Roderick appeals from a March 11, 2014 order denying the motion he had filed nearly four years earlier to reinstate his claim petition. We reverse and remand for appropriate disposition.

During the pendency of the protracted proceedings, petitioner died from injuries he sustained in an unrelated accident. On remand, petitioner's attorney should amend the petition to substitute the appropriate representative for petitioner.

We derive the following facts from the sparse record on appeal. On October 21, 2008, petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries he claimed to have sustained in a work-related accident. Two months later, on December 22, 2008, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as vague, apparently because it did not specifically provide the body parts petitioner injured. Eight months later, on August 26, 2009, a Judge of Compensation (JOC) granted the motion and dismissed the petition, even though petitioner had by then amended his claim petition and cured the deficiency.

Neither the original claim petition nor respondent's answer is included in the record on appeal.

Petitioner's attorney did not appear when respondent's motion was argued. At oral argument, respondent's counsel told the court that she had provided petitioner's attorney "with an affidavit for his client to complete regarding whether he was receiving a pension" but had yet to receive the signed document. She further represented that petitioner's attorney "did not believe his client would be signing the affidavit and had indicated that he had no opposition to the case being dismissed at this time for failure to prosecute the claim."

When the JOC granted the motion following a colloquy between him and respondent's counsel, he said only: "For those foregoing reasons, I will dismiss this matter without prejudice." That statement is ambiguous. One cannot discern whether the JOC was referring to that part of the colloquy concerning petitioner's initial petition, the discussion concerning the railroad pension, the discussion concerning petitioner's attorney not caring about the dismissal, or all three. Thus, though petitioner had amended the petition and cured the defect that was the basis for respondent's motion, the JOC granted the motion.

On March 8, 2010, petitioner's attorney provided the signed affidavit in which petitioner averred that he had never received a railroad pension. Petitioner also filed a motion to reinstate the claim petition. Prior to the motion's return date, respondent's counsel wrote to the court: "please excuse my appearance as I do not oppose Petitioner's Motion to Reinstate the case. As to the merits of the claim, we are still awaiting additional records from our carrier and would request a four-cycle adjournment once the case has been reinstated."

Although petitioner had corrected the deficiency in his initial claim petition and signed an affidavit concerning the railroad pension — a matter that was not the subject of the previous motion and an issue that turned out to be a non-issue — and though respondent had expressly informed the JOC that it did not oppose the motion, the JOC did not grant the motion; rather she adjourned it. She gave no explanation on the record.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. The motion was scheduled for October 20, 2010, when the JOC once again declined to sign an order reinstating the case. Once again, the JOC made no record of her reasoning. In a subsequent certification, petitioner's attorney averred that the JOC "indicated she would not sign the Order to reinstate, giving no valid reason."

On February 2, 2011, the JOC finally "indicated to [petitioner's counsel], in chambers, that she 'did not trust the [p]etitioner to comply with his other obligations in the case.'" Once again, the JOC refused to reinstate the case. Thus, nearly one year had transpired without the court deciding an unopposed motion for which there was no valid reason of record to deny.

Three years later, on March 11, 2014, which was four years after petitioner had filed the motion, a different JOC finally denied it, for reasons unrelated to the initial deficit in the claim petition. Meanwhile, on October 12, 2011, petitioner had been critically injured in a motorcycle accident unrelated to his workers' compensation claim. The injuries rendered petitioner incompetent.

According to respondent's brief, petitioner died between July 5, 2012 and October 22, 2012.
--------

On October 2, 2012, the case was pre-tried. Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations that were hampered due to a child support lien. Petitioner's attorney was unable to contact Carol Roderick, petitioner's guardian, between the end of November 2013 and the end of March 2014. During the last week in January 2014, the court "indicated its intention that the Motion to Restore or Reinstate would be denied on the next appearance if Ms. Roderick, Mr. Roderick's representative, continued to ignore our attempts to reach her." Petitioner's counsel was unable to reach her in the intervening time frame, so the JOC denied the motion to reinstate. As previously noted, Ms. Roderick's appearance or non-appearance was obviously unrelated to the deficiency in petitioner's original claim petition.

In opposition to this appeal, respondent's attorney has submitted, among other things, letters exchanged between counsel concerning medical exams and other matters. It is difficult to discern which of the letters exchanged between counsel, if any, were ever before the trial court, and thus properly before us. Regardless, there are before us only two transcripts of hearings where a JOC made a decision about petitioner's motion. Neither JOC cites the letters between counsel as a basis for a decision. In short, the competent evidence in this record demonstrates that petitioner's motion, which had been filed on March 17, 2010, was denied nearly four years later, on March 11, 2014, after petitioner had sustained fatal injuries in an accident.

During the four years petitioner's reinstatement motion was pending, someone lost sight of the policies underpinning the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128, the need to make a clear record when ruling on motions, and the reason for granting respondent's initial motion. It has long been recognized that the WCA is "important social legislation[.]" Pazino v. Cont'l Can Co., 71 N.J. 298, 303 (1976). "Further, it has long been axiomatic that the [WCA] is to be liberally construed." Ibid. (citations omitted); see also Camp v. Lockheed Elecs., Inc., 178 N.J. Super. 535, 546 (App. Div.) (citations omitted) ("[T]he legislative intent and public policy will be furthered by a liberal construction of the [WCA] in order to reach a salutary and remedial result favorable to the injured workman, rather than one necessarily dictated by the 'coldly literal import' of the legislation."), certif. denied, 87 N.J. 415 (1981).

Moreover, more than thirty years ago, we noted "the need for expeditious handling of workers' compensation cases to be in the public interest[,]" and that "[l]ong delays create an appearance of injustice as well as real injustice many times." Camp, supra, 178 N.J. Super. at 543 (citations omitted). Although, as respondent asserts, petitioner may have been responsible for lengthy delays in this case, we cannot conclude on the record before us that petitioner was responsible for the four-year delay in deciding his motion.

In addition, respondent's motion to dismiss the petition was filed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.1(a)(9), which permits a JOC to dismiss a vague pleading. That defect had been cured by the time the JOC heard respondent's motion. Yet, we have no explanation from the JOC as to the repeated refusal to reinstate the petition. When a JOC makes a decision that can result in the disposition of a claim petition other than on its merits, the factual basis for the decision and a clear explanation of its rationale are matters of fundamental fairness to the litigants and are necessary for meaningful appellate review. See Ducey v. Ducey, 424 N.J. Super. 68, 74 (App. Div. 2012).

Lastly, the court ultimately dismissed the petition — after the petitioner died — because petitioner's attorney had been unable to contact petitioner's representative about a settlement and a child support lien. Needless to say, those issues were far removed, not only in time but also in substance, from the original reasons set forth in respondent's motion to dismiss the claim petition. It is impossible to discern from this record whether this matter would have been resolved before petitioner's fatal accident absent the unjustifiable delay and inexplicable failure to reinstate petitioner's claim petition.

We are not insensitive to the voluminous number of cases JOCs handle daily. And it may be that the JOCs involved in the case before us had ample reasons for either taking action or refraining from taking action on petitioner's reinstatement motion. But were that the case, it would not have been difficult to make an appropriate record.

Although we generally give deference to factual findings and legal determinations made by a JOC, we do not do so when they are "manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with competent relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice." Lindquist v. City of Jersey City Fire Dep't, 175 N.J. 244, 262 (2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, where the deficiencies that led to the dismissal of the claim petition had been cured, where petitioner's reinstatement motion was unopposed, and where nearly four years had elapsed without a JOC making an appropriate record and providing an appropriate explanation for the delay in deciding the motion, the deference we generally give to the decisions of JOCs is unwarranted. Based on the competent evidence in the record before us, the four-year delay and ultimate disposition offend the interests of justice.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order denying petitioner's motion to reinstate the petition. The petition is reinstated. Petitioner's attorney shall move without delay to have an appropriate representative appointed. Petitioner's attorney should also ascertain the amount of any child support lien and to whom it is payable. If the matter cannot be resolved it should be scheduled for trial without further unnecessary delay.

Our opinion should not be construed as prohibiting a JOC from dismissing the petition with prejudice for lack of prosecution, assuming circumstances that warrant such a disposition occur. If the JOC decides to do so, the reasons and rationale for the decision must be explained clearly on the record so that there can be meaningful appellate review should either party appeal.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION


Summaries of

Roderick v. Taxi & Limousine Three, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Apr 24, 2015
DOCKET NO. A-3789-13T4 (App. Div. Apr. 24, 2015)
Case details for

Roderick v. Taxi & Limousine Three, LLC

Case Details

Full title:ARMAND RODERICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TAXI & LIMOUSINE THREE, LLC…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Apr 24, 2015

Citations

DOCKET NO. A-3789-13T4 (App. Div. Apr. 24, 2015)