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.

Manko v. Barnes & Noble

November 2, 2007

TERESA MANKO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
BARNES & NOBLE, INC. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, 2006-17647.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 22, 2007

Before Judges Weissbard and S.L. Reisner.

Petitioner Teresa C. Manko appeals from a February 2, 2007 order of the Workers' Compensation Court dismissing her claim petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

I.

According to her claim petition, Manko worked at a Barnes & Noble store in Easton, Pennsylvania. She was injured while working at that store. Petitioner lives in New Jersey. The employer filed an answer alleging that the New Jersey Worker's Compensation Court lacked jurisdiction and contending that petitioner had already filed a "case" in Pennsylvania. The employer also filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion was supported by a certification of respondent's attorney attesting that petitioner was employed in the Easton store and that "all medical and temporary benefits for the Petitioner were paid in the state of Pennsylvania." In opposition, petitioner's counsel filed a certification, which was part statement of facts and part brief. The certification conceded that petitioner was employed in the Easton store, but contended that Barnes & Noble also does business in New Jersey and that petitioner "became aware of the job opportunity" by reading an advertisement in a newspaper that circulated in New Jersey.*fn1 The attached page from the newspaper indicated that the job opening was in Pennsylvania and that the newspaper itself, The Morning Call, was located in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

At the oral argument of the motion, there was no dispute that petitioner had already filed a claim in Pennsylvania and had received benefits for her injury in Pennsylvania. In an oral opinion, placed on the record on February 2, 2007, Judge Granados held that the petition would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[A]lthough the Petitioner does and has lived in New Jersey, she appears to have been hired in Pennsylvania, worked in Pennsylvania at the Pennsylvania branch of Barnes & Noble. Even though . . . attached to your motion you have a copy of the ad in the Morning Call Career Builder . . . even that is a Pennsylvania publication, I think, but regardless, the contract of hire was in . . . Pennsylvania. The work took place completely in Pennsylvania. I don't think mere residence in New Jersey is enough to establish sufficient nexus with New Jersey to allow a claim to be placed here.

She's already properly, in my opinion, filed in Pennsylvania, and I believe that's where venue should stay.

The judge also confirmed her understanding that dismissal of the New Jersey petition would not preclude petitioner from continuing her claim in Pennsylvania.

II.

Petitioner relies on Larson's treatise on Workers' Compensation Law, which recognizes six possible ...


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.