SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0978-21 

HUDSON REGIONAL 

HOSPITAL, on assignment 

of GJS, RW, JL, LD, and YV,

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a subsidiary of the 

CHARTIS GROUP, owned by 

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL 

GROUP, INC. (AIG), 

 Defendant-Respondent. 

______________________________

Argued December 7, 2022 – Decided November 16, 2023 

Before Judges Gooden Brown and DeAlmeida. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-2936-21.

Christa Michele Spinelli argued the cause for appellant 

(Callagy Law, PC, attorneys; Christa Michele Spinelli, 

on the briefs). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-0978-21

Matthew E. Selmasska argued the cause for respondent 

(Goldberg Segalla LLP, attorneys; John Michael 

McConnell, Paul Steven Danner and Matthew E. 

Selmasska, on the brief). 

 The opinion of the court was delivered by 

DeALMEIDA, J.A.D. 

 Plaintiff Hudson Regional Hospital (Hudson Regional) appeals from the 

November 5, 2021 order of the Law Division dismissing its complaint against 

defendant New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC) with prejudice for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted. We affirm. 

I.

 Hudson Regional operates a hospital in Secaucus. Its staff provided 

medical treatment to five New York residents, identified in the record only as 

G.J.S., R.W., J.L., L.D., and Y.V., for injuries they suffered while working in 

New York for their New York employers. The patients have no connection to 

New Jersey other than having received medical treatment in Secaucus for their 

work-related injuries. 

Hudson Regional obtained an assignment of workers' compensation 

benefits from each of the patients. The hospital sought compensation for the 

medical treatment it provided to its patients before the New York Workers' 
3 A-0978-21

Compensation Board (NYWCB). In each instance, the NYWCB awarded 

compensation in accordance with the New York Workers' Compensation Act 

Fee Schedule, N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 12 § 329-1.3, established 

pursuant to the New York Workers' Compensation Law, N.Y. WORKERS' COMP.

LAW (McKinney 2023). In each instance, the amount awarded was less than 

what Hudson Regional had billed for its treatment. Under Section 13 of the New 

York Worker's Compensation Law, the medical provider is obligated to write 

off the unpaid balance of what it billed after receipt of the award under the fee 

schedule. N.Y. WORKERS' COMP. LAW § 13 (McKinney 2023). 

New York law provides a mechanism for disputing medical treatment 

reimbursements awarded by the NYWCB. See N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. 

tit. 12 §§ 325-6.1 and 328, et seq. Available avenues of review include both an 

adjudication at NYWCB and arbitration. Hudson Regional did not dispute the 

compensation awarded by NYWCB for the treatment of the five patients. 

Instead, Hudson Regional filed claims with the New Jersey Division of 

Workers' Compensation (Division), alleging it was entitled to compensation for 

its medical treatment of the five patients at the rate provided by the New Jersey 

Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), which does not limit reimbursement for 

medical treatment to a fee schedule. See N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 (providing that 
4 A-0978-21

payment for physician, surgeon, and hospital services "shall be reasonable and 

based upon the usual fees and charges which prevail in the same community for 

similar physicians', surgeons' and hospital services."). Hudson Regional sought 

the difference between what was awarded by NYWCB and what it would be 

entitled to under the WCA. NHIC, the workers' compensation insurance carrier 

for the employers of the patients, appeared on behalf of the employers. 

A judge of compensation issued orders dismissing three of Hudson 

Regional's claims for want of jurisdiction. In written opinions, the judge 

concluded that N.J.S.A. 34:15-15, which provides that "[e]xclusive jurisdiction 

for any disputed medical charge arising from any claim for compensation for a 

work-related injury or illness shall be vested in the division[,]" does not vest in 

the Division jurisdiction over a claim for benefits by a New York employee of 

a New York employer injured in New York, merely because the employee 

received medical treatment at a New Jersey hospital. 

The judge noted that our Supreme Court recognized six possible bases to 

assert jurisdiction in New Jersey for a workers' compensation claim: (1) place 

where the injury occurred; (2) place of making the contract of employment; (3) 

place where the employment relationship exists or is carried out; (4) place where 

the industry is located; (5) place where the employee resides; and (6) place 
5 A-0978-21

whose statute the parties expressly adopt by contract. See Williams v. Port Auth. 

of N.Y. and N.J., 175 N.J. 82, 87-88 (2003). Finding that the only connection 

to New Jersey was that the patients were treated in Secaucus, the judge 

determined the Division lacked jurisdiction over Hudson Regional's claims. 

Hudson Regional's other claims were dismissed by judges of

compensation on the same basis. Hudson Regional, however, did not appeal the 

decisions dismissing their claims to this court. See R. 2:2-3(a)(2) (allowing for 

appeals to this court from final decisions of State administrative agencies).

Instead, Hudson Regional filed a complaint in the Law Division against 

NHIC, alleging the patients it treated, whose rights it was assigned, are thirdparty beneficiaries under the insurance policies NHIC issued to their employers 

and are, as a result, entitled to workers' compensation benefits at the rate 

authorized by the WCA for medical treatment they received in New Jersey. 

Hudson Regional alleged that because NHIC provided benefits only at the 

amounts awarded by NYWCB pursuant to the New York fee schedule, and not 

the amounts permitted under the WCA, NHIC: (1) breached the contractual 

rights of the five patients; (2) was unjustly enriched; (3) engaged in bad faith 

and unfair claim settlement practices; and (4) breached the implied covenant of 

good faith and fair dealing in its policies. 
6 A-0978-21

Hudson Regional sought an award of $386,961.32, what it alleged was the 

difference between what NHIC paid for the medical treatment it provided to the 

patients and what it would have received under the WCA. In support of its 

jurisdictional allegations, Hudson Regional alleged that NHIC and the 

employers conduct business in New Jersey. 

NHIC moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(a) for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction, and Rule 4:6-2 (e) for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. 

On November 5, 2021, the trial court entered an order granting NHIC's 

motion and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. In an oral opinion, the trial 

court concluded that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15, the Division has exclusive 

jurisdiction over claims for reimbursement for medical treatment arising from 

work-related injuries and a challenge to a decision by the Division to not award 

such benefits must be through an appeal to this court. See R. 2:2-3(a)(2). The 

trial court concluded that Hudson Regional could not recharacterize its patients' 

claims for workers' compensation benefits as allegations of breach of contract 

in an action in the Superior Court in lieu of appealing the Division's decisions.

This appeal follows. Hudson Regional argues that the Law Division has 

jurisdiction to hear its patients' contract claims against NHIC. 
7 A-0978-21

II. 

 We review the trial court's jurisdictional decision de novo. Beaver v. 

Magellan Health Srvs., Inc., 433 N.J. Super. 430, 437 (App. Div. 2013). The 

focus of our inquiry is "whether plaintiff can assert [its] causes of action in the 

Law Division under the circumstances presented." Id. at 437-38.

 We apply a de novo standard of review to trial court's order dismissing a 

complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e). See Stop & Shop Supermarkets Co. v. Cty. of

Bergen, 450 N.J. Super. 286, 290 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Teamsters Loc. 97 

v. State, 434 N.J. Super. 393, 413 (App. Div. 2014)). Under the rule, we owe 

no deference to the motion judge's conclusions. Rezem Fam. Assocs., LP v. 

Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103, 114 (App. Div. 2011). "[O]ur 

inquiry is limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the 

face of the complaint." Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 

N.J. 739, 746 (1989). "A pleading should be dismissed if it states no basis for 

relief and discovery would not provide one." Rezem Fam. Assocs., 423 N.J. 

Super. at 113. 

 We have carefully considered the record and are not persuaded by Hudson 

Regional's arguments that the trial court erred when it dismissed its complaint. 
8 A-0978-21

The Legislature has unequivocally vested "[e]xclusive jurisdiction" in the 

Division "for any disputed medical charge arising from any claim for 

compensation for a work-related injury or illness . . . ." N.J.S.A. 34:15-15. 

Hudson Regional pursued claims for workers' compensation benefits in the 

Division on behalf of its patients. The Division concluded that it did not have 

jurisdiction over the claims of New York employees of New York employers 

who were injured at work in New York. The Division rejected the argument 

that the employees' election to receive medical treatment at a New Jersey 

hospital was sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Division to adjudicate a claim 

for benefits under the WCA. Hudson Regional did not appeal the Division's 

decision. 

It elected instead to file a breach of contract action against NHIC on behalf 

of its patients in the Superior Court. It cannot, however, transmogrify the 

employees workers' compensation claims into breach of contract claims. The 

WCA compensates employees for personal injuries caused "by accident arising 

out of and in the course of employment . . . ." N.J.S.A. 34:15-7. The WCA 

authorizes benefits "irrespective of the fault of the employer or contributory 

negligence and assumption of risk of the employee." Harris v. Branin Transp., 

Inc., 312 N.J. Super. 38, 46 (App. Div. 1998). In addition, recovery under the 
9 A-0978-21

statute is "the exclusive remedy for an employee who sustains an injury in an 

accident that arises out of and in the course of employment." McDaniel v. Lee, 

419 N.J. Super. 482, 490 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Ahammed v. Logandro, 394 

N.J. Super. 179, 190 (App. Div. 2007)). 

The WCA "accomplished a 'historic trade-off whereby employees 

relinquished their right to pursue common-law remedies in exchange for 

automatic entitlement to certain, but reduced, benefits whenever they suffered 

injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.'" Van Dunk 

v. Reckson Assocs. Realty Corp., 210 N.J. 449, 458-59 (2012) (quoting Millison 

v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161, 174 (1985)). 

An employee who receives an unfavorable decision from the Division 

cannot circumvent the comprehensive statutory structure enacted by the 

Legislature to address work-related claims by filing a suit alleging breach of 

contract in the Superior Court against their employers' workers' compensation 

carrier seeking workers' compensation benefits denied by the Division. Hudson 

Regional's available avenue of review of the Division's decision was to file an 

appeal on behalf of its patients in this court.1

1

 We offer no view on whether any such appeal would have been successful. 

We note, as well, that claims were filed on the patients' behalf before the 
10 A-0978-21

Hudson Regional correctly notes that a New Jersey medical provider may 

file an action in the Superior Court to recover fees for medical services it 

provided to an out-of-State patient for a work-related injury, even if that patient 

received workers' compensation benefits in their home State. See D'Ascoli v. 

Stieh, 326 N.J. Super. 499 (App. Div. 1999). In that case, a Pennsylvania 

resident, employed by a Pennsylvania employer, was injured while working in 

Pennsylvania. Id. at 500. She received medical treatment from D'Ascoli, a 

surgeon, in New Jersey and signed an agreement to pay the fees for the services 

she received, irrespective of insurance coverage. Id. at 501. D'Ascoli received 

payment for a portion of his fees from the Pennsylvania workers' compensation 

insurance carrier for the patient's employer. Ibid. D'Ascoli thereafter filed a 

complaint in the Superior Court against the patient to collect the outstanding 

balance of the charges for his services. Ibid. 

"There [was] no question that [the patient's] workers' compensation claim 

[was] governed by Pennsylvania's workers' compensation law." Id. at 500. 

There is also no question that a component of 

Pennsylvania's workers' compensation law is 77 Pa. 

NYWCB, which awarded benefits to them for the services provided by Hudson 

Regional. No appeal was taken in New York from the decision of the NYWCB. 

There was, therefore, more than one path through which Hudson Regional could 

have challenged what it viewed to be unfavorable decisions of adjudicative 

bodies with respect to its patient's claims for benefits for medical treatment. 
11 A-0978-21

Stat. § 531 (7), which bars a medical provider from

seeking to hold the employee liable for all or any 

portion of the medical costs incurred in treating a

compensable injury, the provider's exclusive payment 

remedy being against the insurer. 

[Ibid.] 

 

The patient moved for summary judgment, arguing that the protection 

provided by Pennsylvania's workers' compensation law from having to pay the 

outstanding balance of her medical treatment costs immunized her from 

D'Ascoli's suit in a New Jersey court. Id. at 501. The trial court denied the 

motion and the matter proceeded to entry of judgment in favor of the surgeon. 

Id. at 500. 

 On appeal, the patient raised the same argument rejected by the trial court. 

We affirmed. As we explained, 

[a] New Jersey licensed physician who renders medical 

services in this State should be able to rely on the 

contract laws of this State in seeking payment. It is also 

arguable that by deciding to have her treatment outside 

of Pennsylvania, defendant waived the benefit of this 

aspect of the Pennsylvania workers' compensation law. 

We are satisfied that the reasonable expectations of 

both parties in respect of the rendering of medical

treatment here were or should have been consistent with 

defendant's agreement to pay for the medical services 

rendered by plaintiff. 

[Id. at 504.] 
12 A-0978-21

This precedent is of no assistance to Hudson Regional here. Although the 

facts underlying the present matter are substantively similar to those before the 

court in D'Ascoli, a crucial distinction renders the holding in that case 

inapplicable to Hudson Regional's claims. Hudson Regional is not suing the 

five patients it treated for the outstanding portion of the hospital's charges for 

the medical services it rendered to them. Under D'Ascoli, such a suit might well 

be viable in a New Jersey court. Instead, Hudson Regional, having been 

assigned the claims of its patients, is suing NHIC for workers' compensation 

benefits it alleges the insurance carrier is obligated to pay the patients because 

they received medical treatment in New Jersey. The claims raised in Hudson 

Regional's Superior Court complaint are nothing more than a thinly veiled 

attempt to recast the patients' claims for workers' compensation benefits as 

breach of contract claims. Such claims may be raised only in the Division 

pursuant to its exclusive jurisdiction. 

 Affirmed.