Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Judah v. General Supermarkets Inc.

Decided: March 7, 1968.

ALLEGRA JUDAH, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
GENERAL SUPERMARKETS, INC., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT



Convery, J.s.c.

Convery

This is an appeal from an award of temporary disability benefits and medical expenses following hearings in the Workmen's Compensation Division.

Respondent denied that petitioner met with an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment, putting

petitioner to proof as to each material allegation of the petition.

The issues involved in this appeal are: (1) is an award of temporary disability benefit and medical expenses a final judgment which can be appealed to the county court, and (2) does the record before the Division establish a compensable work-connected injury?

The court here reviewed the testimony in the Division.

The question of whether an award of temporary disability benefits and medical expenses is a final judgment which can be appealed to the county court appears to be novel in this State.

Appeals from compensation awards are governed by N.J.S.A. 34:15-66 which states:

"Either party may appeal from the judgment of the director, deputy director, or referee, to the County Court of the County in which the accident occurred * * *."

The word "judgment" as used in this action means "final judgment." In Barry v. Wallace J. Wilck, Inc., 65 N.J. Super. 130, 137 (App. Div. 1961), the court held that the county court had no jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders in compensation cases and stated:

"The use of the word 'judgment' without any qualifying or amplifying language, and in the context found, imports the idea of 'final judgment.' Clearly, it deals with the final disposition of the issues raised in a proceeding. It is unreasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended to convey the idea that all intermediate and interlocutory orders made by the Division in the course of its processing a compensation claim should be appealable as a matter of right."

In the proceedings before the Division petitioner claimed that she was injured while performing her duties for respondent. Respondent denied petitioner's injuries were work-connected and thus would be noncompensable. Testimony ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.