Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3570-12T2
02-04-2015
TERRANCE R. JENKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L.A. FITNESS, Respondent-Respondent
Terrance R. Jenkins, appellant pro se. Respondent L.A. Fitness has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Haas. On appeal from New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Workers' Compensation, Claim Petition No. 12-3455. Terrance R. Jenkins, appellant pro se. Respondent L.A. Fitness has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Petitioner Terrance R. Jenkins appeals from the decision of a Judge of Workers' Compensation, denying his application for commutation of his workers' compensation award. See N.J.S.A. 34:15-25.
Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we note that petitioner did not properly perfect his appeal by providing us with the order from which he appeals, a copy of the award he seeks to have commuted, or the application he filed with the compensation judge. Nor does his one-page brief cite to any statutes or case law. Nonetheless, in the interests of justice, we have considered the record he did provide to us, including the transcript of the February 22, 2013 oral argument before Supervising Judge of Compensation Virginia Dietrich and the oral opinion she placed on the record. Based on the record provided to us, we conclude that the judge's decision was based on sufficient credible evidence, and does not represent an abuse of discretion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D); Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). Therefore, we affirm. We add these comments.
A workers' compensation award "may be commuted" when it is in "the best interest of" the employee. N.J.S.A. 34:15-25. The statute provides the following guidance in evaluating a commutation application:
[T]he [court] will regard the intention of this chapter that compensation payments are in lieu of wages, and are to be received by the injured employee or his dependents in the same manner in which wages are ordinarily paid. Commutation is to be allowed only when it clearly appears that an unusual circumstance warrants a departure
from the normal manner of payment and not to enable the injured employee . . . to satisfy a debt, or to make payment to physicians, lawyers or others.
[Ibid.]
Commutation has been permitted to pay for a lifesaving operation. Vieira v. On Shore Constr. Co., 297 N.J. Super. 518, 522 (App. Div. 1997) (citing Jensen v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 92 N.J.L. 529 (1919)). However, our courts have specifically noted that commutation is not appropriate to allow a petitioner to start up a "shaky business." Ibid.; Harrison v. A & J Friedman Supply, Co., 372 N.J. Super. 326, 332 n.3 (App. Div. 2004). On an appeal from the denial of a commutation application, we review the compensation judge's decision for abuse of discretion. Harrison, supra, 372 N.J. Super. at 331.
In his testimony before Judge Dietrich, petitioner stated that he was seeking $16,000 in commutation funds, out of a remaining compensation award of about $28,000, to "open a small business" selling fish and chips. He stated that he intended to build on his mother's current catering business. However, he told the judge that the mother's business currently had few customers. Further, petitioner stated that he needed to purchase equipment and supplies for his proposed business, he was already in arrears on his rental payments for the business premises, and he needed to pay off his mother's debts.
Judge Dietrich found that petitioner did not have a reasonable business plan and had already over-extended himself financially. She concluded that allowing the proposed commutation "would be throwing good money after bad." Given our limited standard of review, we find no basis in this record to second-guess her decision.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION