SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0559-20

CLAUDE TOWNSEND,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY TRANSIT,

Respondent-Respondent.

__________________________

Submitted January 20, 2022 – Decided February 2, 2022

Before Judges Alvarez and Haas.

On appeal from the State of New Jersey Department of 

Labor and Workforce Development, Division of 

Workers' Compensation, Claim Petition No. 2018-

32228.

Claude Townsend, appellant pro se.

Brown & Connery, LLP, attorneys for respondent 

(Stephanie L. Meredith, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0559-20

Petitioner Claude Townsend appeals from the October 7, 2020 order of 

the Workers' Compensation Court (the court) granting respondent New Jersey 

Transit's motion to dismiss his claim petition. We affirm.

The material facts are not in dispute. Townsend previously worked for 

respondent as a bus driver. On January 29, 2008, Townsend's bus was involved 

in an accident. He filed a claim petition seeking workers' compensation benefits 

for alleged injuries to his hands, chest, and shoulder, and to treat "a psychiatric 

component."1 The court dismissed Townsend's petition with prejudice on 

October 4, 2010 because he "fail[ed] to sustain [his] burden of proof." 

Townsend appealed that determination, and we dismissed his appeal on 

February 9, 2011 when he failed to prosecute it.

Five years later, Townsend filed an application with the court seeking to 

reopen or modify its prior order dismissing his petition with prejudice. On July 

25, 2016, the court granted respondent's motion to dismiss Townsend's 

application with prejudice because it was untimely.

On August 13, 2018, Townsend filed an application in the Appellate 

Division to reopen his prior claim petition. We treated this application as an 

11

 After discharging the attorney who filed the claim petition, as well as a second 

attorney, Townsend represented himself in all of the proceedings relevant to this 

appeal.
3

A-0559-20

appeal from the court's July 25, 2016 order and dismissed the appeal with 

prejudice on September 11, 2018 because it was untimely.

A few weeks later, Townsend filed yet another application with the court 

and again asked for review of the prior dismissal of his claim petition. 

Townsend alleged the Workers' Compensation judge who dismissed his petition 

on October 4, 2010 was biased against him. He also argued that because he was 

recently successful in obtaining Social Security disability benefits, respondent 

should now be required to pay him workers' compensation. Respondent moved 

to dismiss Townsend's application and asked the court to order him to pay the 

costs it incurred in responding to his pleadings.

On October 7, 2020, the court granted respondent's motion and dismissed 

Townsend's latest petition with prejudice. In its comprehensive written 

decision, the court ruled that Townsend was again attempting to relitigate his 

original claim. The court found there was no evidence that the judge who 

dismissed that claim was biased against Townsend. Because Townsend's current 

petition was frivolous, the court ordered him to pay respondent $900.99 it 

"expended on transcript costs" and $250 in counsel fees.

On appeal, Townsend presents the following contentions:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING 

[THE] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL TO 
4

A-0559-20

[RESPONDENT] BECAUSE THE 

[PETITIONER] NEVER HAD A HEARING 

FOR THE DISCRIMINATION MOTION.

II. EVEN IF [PETITIONER'S] CASE WAS 

DISMISSED FOR FRIVOLOUS 

LITIGATIONS, THIS COURT SHOULD 

ADOPT THE "THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF 

APPEALS SOCIAL SECURITY JUDGMENT" 

SO [PETITIONER] CAN BE COMPENSATED 

FOR HIS LOSSES. (Not raised below).

We have considered Townsend's contentions in light of the record and the 

applicable legal principles, and conclude they are without sufficient merit to 

warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add 

the following brief comments.

The court properly rejected Townsend's repeated claims for workers' 

compensation benefits for the January 29, 2008 bus accident. "[T]he doctrine 

of res judicata provides that a cause of action between parties that has been 

finally determined on the merits by a tribunal having jurisdiction cannot be 

relitigated by those parties or their privies in a new proceeding." Velasquez v. 

Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505 (1991) (citing Roberts v. Goldner, 79 N.J. 82, 85 

(1979)). Here, Townsend has already unsuccessfully litigated the issue of 

whether he is eligible for workers' compensation benefits multiple times before 
5

A-0559-20

the court and the Appellate Division. He is not entitled to another bite of the 

apple at this late date. 

Townsend's claim that the first judge who dismissed his complaint was 

biased against him also lacked merit. A party's contention that a trial judge was 

unfair or biased "cannot be inferred from adverse rulings against a party." 

Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298, 318 (App. Div. 2008). Based on our 

review of the appellate record, we conclude that all of the judges who presided 

over the workers' compensation proceedings accorded Townsend a full 

opportunity to present arguments in support of his claims. Therefore, we reject 

Townsend's unsupported contentions to the contrary.

Finally, we find no significance in the Social Security Administration's 

determination that Townsend was entitled to Social Security disability benefits. 

The Administration has its own statute and applies different standards than the 

Workers' Compensation Court.

Affirmed.