June came to a close last week. There were no Supreme Court decisions. The Appellate Division, however, issued five published opinions. Only one of them was discussed, here. Here are summaries of the others:
Musker v. Suuchi, Inc., 479 N.J. Super. 38 (App. Div. 2024). This was an interlocutory appeal by plaintiff, an employee of the first named defendant. She alleged that defendant had failed to pay her commissions that she earned from the sale of Personal Protection Equipment (“PPE”). PPE became very much in demand after the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020. Plaintiff asserted claims under the Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 et seq., for breach of contract and for tortious interference with contract. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the Wage Payment Law claim. The Law Division granted summary judgment to defendant on that claim, ruling that the commissions at issue were “supplementary incentives” rather than “wages” and were therefore not within the ambit of the Wage Payment Law. In an opinion by Judge Sabatino, the Appellate Division affirmed, while noting that plaintiff’s “non-statutory contractual claims” could proceed.
Estate of Campbell v. Woodcliff Health & Rehabilitation Center, 479 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 2024). This was another case that came to the Appellate Division on leave to appeal. Judge Accurso wrote this opinion. Plaintiff Estate alleged that its decedent died of COVID-19 that he allegedly contracted from his wife. The wife, a stroke patient, had been under defendants’ care until they released her. She had been tested for COVID on the day before she was discharged, and defendants notified her that she had tested positive for COVID two days after the discharge. She later recovered from COVID, but her husband died. The Estate alleged that defendants had acted negligently, grossly negligently, and recklessly in releasing the decedent, and that they had a duty not merely to the wife but to the decedent. The Law Division denied a motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, however, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that defendants were immune from any liability under the New Jersey COVID-19 Immunity Statute, L. 2020, c. 18.
Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. The State of New Jersey, 478 N.J. Super. 626 (App. Div. 2024). As Judge Smith summarized in this opinion for the Appellate Division, “[p]laintiffs, a group of hospitals licensed to do business in New Jersey and governed by the Health Care Cost Reduction Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.50 to -69, contend that N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.64 (charity care), the State’s Medicaid Plan, and corresponding regulations compel plaintiffs to use medicine, equipment, and services they control to provide patient care regardless of ability to pay, and without an adequate subsidy to make up the financial shortfall. Plaintiffs argue that this scheme represents an unconstitutional taking. Plaintiffs also claim the trial court erred when it dismissed certain plaintiffs’ claims for a lack of ripeness due to their failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” The Law Division granted summary judgment to to defendants on certain taking claims and dismissed others for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Applying de novo review, the Appellate Division affirmed, though its reasons differed somewhat from those of the Law Division.
Estate of Massi v. Barr, 479 N.J. Super. 144 (App. Div. 2024). This Tort Claims Act case resulted in another opinion by Judge Sabatino. Plaintiff’s decedent was injured in accident while riding a bicycle on a public road pitted with potholes and without a full shoulder. (He died while this case was pending, not from the accident). The road spanned two municipalities. An expert for plaintiff testified that those municipalities, which were among the defendants here, used incorrect methods to patch the road, leaving it dangerous for both bicycles and motorcycles. The Law Division granted summary judgment to the municipalities, but the Appellate Division reversed, applying Polzo v. County of Essex (“Polzo II“), 209 N.J. 51 (2012), “to a record with an unrebutted expert opinion that the road surface was unsafe for both bicycles and also motorcycles” (emphasis in original). The panel concluded that “a public entity that is palpably unreasonable in failing to correct such a known dangerous road condition may be liable to a bicyclist who is injured because of that danger,” though bicyclists must also use due care when riding on “a visibly hazardous, potholed surface.”