in the statutory construction of N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13(a).
First, N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13(a) "does not reveal the amount of
time a party has to challenge an award when an application to
modify has been denied." Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., supra, 413 N.J.
Super. at 523. Second, N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13(a) does not reveal
Subsection 12(d) provides that, "[o]n written application of a party to the umpire within 20 days after delivery of the award to the applicant, the umpire may modify the award upon the grounds stated in subsection e. of section 13 of this act." N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-12(d); see also N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13(e). When Mount Hope was decided, N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-19 provided that such summary actions "shall be heard in the Chancery Division." L. 1987 c. 54, § 19. That requirement was later removed when N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-19 was amended to provide that such summary actions "shall be heard in accordance with any rules adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court." L. 2005 c. 338 § 1. Pursuant to the Rules of Court, the parties here filed in the Law Division. See R. 4:3-1(a).
8 A-0945-14T2 the amount of time a party has to challenge an award when the
application to modify is made not pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-
12(d), but pursuant to the rules adopted by the organization.
"It is well settled that the goal of statutory
interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature's
intent." Cashin v. Bello, 223 N.J. 328, 335 (2015). "'In most
instances, the best indicator of that intent is the plain
language chosen by the Legislature.'" Ibid. (citation omitted).
We "must read words 'with[in] their context' and give them
'their generally accepted meaning.'" Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A.
1:1-1). "Statutory language is to be interpreted 'in a common
sense manner to accomplish the legislative purpose.'" State v.
Olivero, 221 N.J. 632, 639 (2015) (quoting N.E.R.I. Corp. v.
N.J. Highway Auth., 147 N.J. 223, 236 (1996)). "When a statute
is ambiguous as written, however, a court may consider extrinsic
sources, including 'legislative history, committee reports, and
contemporaneous construction.'" Cashin, supra, 223 N.J. at 335-
36.
"As with all issues of statutory construction, our review
in this matter is de novo." Id. at 335. We must hew to that
standard of review.
9 A-0945-14T2 A.
The first unsettled issue concerns the applicable time
period under N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13(a) after the denial of an
application to modify an award under N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-12(d) (a
"12(d) application"). N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13(a) clearly addresses
two scenarios. First, if no party files a 12(d) application, a
party must file a summary action challenging the award "within
45 days after the award is delivered to the applicant." Ibid.
Second, if a party files a 12(d) application, and the umpire
issues a modified award, a party must file a summary action
challenging the modified award "within 30 days after receipt of
an award modified pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-12(d)]." Ibid.
However, N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13(a) does not address the third
scenario where a party files a 12(d) application, and the umpire
issues an order denying modification of the award.