Hager v. M&K Construction, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). As discussed here, the Appellate Division in this case affirmed the decision of a Workers Compensation judge that the defendant employer was obligated to reimburse the plaintiff employee for the employee’s use of medical marijuana prescribed for chronic pain caused by a work-related accident. The Appellate Division rejected arguments by the employer that, among other things, the federal Controlled Substances Act 21 U.S.C. § 841 (“CSA”), which makes it a crime to manufacture, possess or distribute marijuana, preempts the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”), the basis for plaintiff’s reimbursement claim, because it was allegedly impossible to comply with both statutes. read more
Employers are Obligated to Reimburse Employees for Medical Marijuana Treatment Reasonably Necessary to Treat Work-Related Injuries
A Statutory Interpretation Anniversary
The principle that a court should not write into a statute a qualification that the Legislature chose not to include is now a basic tenet of statutory interpretation. But it was seemingly a somewhat new idea on this date in 1952, when the Supreme Court decided Craster v. Board of Commissioners of City of Newark, 9 N.J. 225 (1952). read more
The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in Meade v. Township of Livingston. The question presented in that case, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “In this action alleging wrongful termination based on gender discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, was plaintiff’s claim sufficient to survive summary judgment?” The Law Division granted summary judgment to defendant, and the Appellate Division affirmed that ruling in an unpublished per curiam opinion by a two-judge panel. read more
[Disclosure: This post contains blatant self-promotion]. I have been elected as a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. The induction ceremony will occur later this month. read more
Relief From Judgment Under Rule 4:50-1(f) in a Tax Sale Foreclosure Case
BV001 REO Blocker, LLC v. 53 West Somerset Properties, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Judge Ostrer’s opinion in this case, issued today, may become the new “go-to” source in cases seeking to invoke Rule 4:50-1(f). That Rule permits relief from judgments for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment” besides those listed in the preceding sub-sections of Rule 4:50-1. read more
reader