Title: Linda Fitzgerald v. Tom Coddington Stables, et al .
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-119-04
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: January 25, 2006

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). In early 2001, Linda Fitzgerald was employed as a second trainer and groom by Tom Coddington Stables (Coddington Stables), a trainer operating out of Showplace Farms in Millstone Township. Coddington Stables satisfied its obligation to provide workers compensation coverage to Fitzgerald by the purchase of coverage from a private carrier. In April of 2001, in the course of her employment with Coddington Stables, while caring for a horse not owned by her employer, Fitzgerald was injured when the horse jumped and struck her. Fitzgerald submitted two petitions before the Division of Workers Compensation. One petition sought benefits from Coddington Stables under its statutorily required coverage. The second petition sought compensation from the Compensation Board on the basis that Fitzgerald was a horse racing industry employee and, hence, is entitled to coverage from the Board. The issue is which entity, Coddington Stables or the Board, is to bear the burden of that coverage. The workers compensation judge decided that the Compensation Board was responsible for payments due Fitzgerald from the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed. In affirming, the appellate panel rejected the Board s argument that the statutory definition of a horse racing industry employee applies only to the employees of the actual owner of the horse and that, therefore, Fitzgerald was not a racing horse industry employee because she was working on a horse that was not owned by Coddington Stables. On reconsideration of its denial of the Board s petition for certification, this Court granted the Board s petition for certification. HELD: Linda Fitzgerald, Coddington Stables horse-trainer employee, does not fall within the plain meaning of the Horse Racing Injury Compensation Board Act s definition of a horse racing industry employee; the workers compensation scheme established pursuant to the Act requires that a horse trainer not employed by the horse s owner must be covered by private workers compensation coverage provided by the employer; the workers compensation coverage provided by the Board is intended as a safety net for those instances where serious injuries have been sustained for which there is no coverage. The ultimate purpose of the workers compensation statutes is to provide a dependable minimum of compensation to insure security from want during a period of disability. It is the understanding of most workers that the benefits of the workers compensation statutes apply to accidents arising out of the course of their employment. Consistent with its humanitarian ideals, our workers compensation statutory scheme has always been liberally construed in favor of coverage. (p. 9) 2. In addressing the specific purpose of the Horse Racing Compensation Injury Compensation Board Act (the Act), the Legislature declared that because of the unique nature of the horse racing industry, difficulties have arisen in assuring that workers compensation coverage is provided to employees. The purpose of the Act was to fill a gap in workers compensation coverage unique to the horse racing industry. (pp. 11-12) 3. By the adoption of this remedial legislation, the Legislature did not intend to provide blanket coverage to every person employed in the horse racing industry. Horse owners are the employers subject to the obligations of the workers compensation scheme established by the Act and, as such, bear the burden of funding that scheme in its entirety. In contrast, the workers compensation obligation of a horse trainer is the same as the general workers compensation obligation of any non-horse owner employer. (pp. 12-13) 4. The Act, when viewed as a whole, is designed as a safety net to catch those employed in the horse racing industry who are employed by horse owners and are without workers compensation coverage. In furtherance of the goal of providing workers compensation coverage to those in the horse racing industry who otherwise were without coverage, the Legislature limited the universe of beneficiaries of that workers compensation scheme to those who are engaged in performing services for an owner or those horse trainers who otherwise would be considered an employee of the owner. The Legislature separately required that trainers, not owners, comply with the general workers compensation requirements for their employees. In short, the legislative scheme evinces a clear limited purpose in coverage, one that is also buttressed by the statute s legislative history. (pp. 16-17) 5. The version of N.J.S.A. 34:15-131 containing the definition that governs Fitzgerald s claim does not include a trainer employed by a horse trainer because a horse trainer is twice statutorily required both generally in the Workers Compensation Act as well as expressly in the Compensation Board Injury Act to provide private workers compensation coverage to its employees. (pp. 20-21. 6. Fitzgerald does not fall within the statutory definition of a horse racing industry employee; the workers compensation scheme established by the Act requires that a horse trainer not employed by the owner must be covered by private workers compensation coverage provided by the trainer s employer; the workers compensation coverage provided by the Board is intended as a safety net for those instances where serious injuries have been sustained for which there is no coverage. (p.21) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the petitions are REMANDED to the Division of Workers Compensation for entry of an order dismissing the petition against the Board and reinstating the petition against Coddington Stables. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and J USTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, and WALLACE join in JUSTICE RIVERA-S OTO s opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 119 September Term 2004 LINDA FITZGERALD, Petitioner-Respondent, v. TOM CODDINGTON STABLES, Respondent-Respondent, and N.J. HORSE RACING INJURY COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent-Appellant. Argued October 11, 2005 Decided January 25, 2006 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 370 N.J. Super. 582 (2004). Francis T. Giuliano argued the cause for appellant. Kenneth L. Thomson argued the cause for respondent Linda Fitzgerald (Schottland, Manning, Caliendo &amp; Thomson, attorneys). Nicholas L. Krochta argued the cause for respondent Tom Coddington Stables (Kulick, Brennan &amp; Krochta, attorneys). Juliet T. Wyne, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Racing Commission (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel). Mark D. Schorr submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Standardbred Breeders &amp; Owners Association of New Jersey, Inc. (Sterns &amp; Weinroth, attorneys). JUSTICE RIVERA-SOTO delivered the opinion of the Court. In this appeal, we address the seeming contradiction that arises from the intersection of two separate statutory workers compensation insurance requirements applicable to employees in New Jersey s horse racing industry: the broad obligation of all horse trainers to provide private workers compensation insurance to their employees under N.J.S.A. 34:15-134.1 versus the requirement that the New Jersey Horse Racing Injury Compensation Board (Compensation Board or Board) secure workers compensation insurance coverage for horse racing industry employees. N.J.S.A. 34:15-134a. Both the Division of Workers Compensation judge and the Appellate Division held that the Board s statutory obligation trumps that of the private employer because, in their view, the petitioner in this action fell squarely within the statute s definition of a horse racing industry employee under N.J.S.A. 34:15-131. We disagree, and hold that the petitioner does not fall within the plain meaning of the statutory definition of a horse racing industry employee, a conclusion also mandated by the statute s purpose and context, and legislative history. We further hold that the workers compensation scheme established pursuant to the New Jersey Horse Racing Injury Compensation Board Act (Horse Racing Compensation Act), N.J.S.A. 34:15-129 to -142, requires that a horse trainer not employed by an owner must be covered by private workers compensation insurance provided by his employer, and that the workers compensation coverage provided by the Board is intended as a safety net for those instances where serious injuries have been sustained for which there is no coverage. N.J.S.A. 34:15-130. [Naseef v. Cord, Inc., 48 N.J. 317, 325-26 (1966).] It is, then, against this backdrop that we must gauge the competing interests here. A court should not resort to extrinsic interpretive aids when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and susceptible to only one interpretation. . . . On the other hand, if there is ambiguity in the statutory language that leads to more than one plausible interpretation, we may turn to extrinsic evidence, including legislative history, committee reports, and contemporaneous construction. We may also resort to extrinsic evidence if a plain reading of the statute leads to an absurd result or if the overall statutory scheme is at odds with the plain language. [DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492-93 (2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).] The application of these principles informs our inquiry and requires an examination of the statute in search of its plain meaning. The reach of the Horse Racing Compensation Act concededly is narrow: it addresses one legal requirement, the provision of workers compensation coverage, to a limited segment of employees within a specified industry. Because both the workers compensation judge and the Appellate Division determined that petitioner fit within that narrow band of employees entitled to coverage from the Board as horse racing industry employee[s], a broad review of the Horse Racing Compensation Act is helpful to provide context to this analysis. [Ibid.] Stated differently, the purpose of the Horse Racing Compensation Act was to fill a gap in workers compensation coverage unique to the horse racing industry. In order to implement those goals, the Legislature established the Board, N.J.S.A. 34:115-132, and charged it with the obligation to secure workers compensation insurance coverage for horse racing industry employees. N.J.S.A. 34:15-134a. This specialized workers compensation coverage is funded directly by an assessment upon the gross overnight purses paid to either thoroughbred or standardbred horse owners not to exceed three percent of such purses. N.J.S.A. 34:15-134b and -134c. Specifically, no public funds are to be used to provide the workers compensation coverage required by the Horse Racing Compensation Act. N.J.S.A. 34:15-134c. By the adoption of this remedial legislation, the Legislature did not intend to provide blanket coverage to every person employed in the horse racing industry. Indeed, consistent with the stated public policy goals the Legislature sought to achieve, the Horse Racing Compensation Act distinguishes between horse owners and horse trainers. As noted earlier, horse owners are the employers subject to the obligations of the workers compensation scheme established by the Horse Racing Compensation Act, see N.J.S.A. 34:15-134b, -134c, and -135, and, as such, bear the burden of funding that scheme in its entirety. N.J.S.A. 34:15-134b and -134c. In contrast, and [n]otwithstanding any provision of [the Horse Racing Compensation Act] as amended, a trainer shall carry compensation insurance covering the trainer s employees as required by law. N.J.S.A. 34:15-134.1. Thus, although the specific workers compensation obligation of a horse owner arises under the provisions of the Horse Racing Compensation Act, the workers compensation obligation of a horse trainer is the same as the general workers compensation obligations of any non-horse owner employer under New Jersey s Workers Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -69.3, Employers Liability Insurance Law, N.J.S.A. 34:15-70 to -102, and Workers Compensation Security Fund Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-103 to 128. That contextual setting sets the stage for the determination whether petitioner satisfies the statutory definition of a horse racing industry employee entitled to workers compensation benefits from the Board under the Horse Racing Compensation Act. [N.J.S.A. 34:15-131.] See footnote 6 Taking that definition in isolation, both the workers compensation judge and the Appellate Division concluded that petitioner satisfied the requirements of a horse racing industry employee. They therefore determined that petitioner was entitled to workers compensation benefits from the Board under the Horse Racing Compensation Act, which coverage also was determined to be primary to the workers compensation coverage provided by her employer, Coddington Stables. As a matter of the plain meaning of this statute, we disagree. Under N.J.S.A. 34:15-131, only three categories of persons qualify as a horse racing industry employee. It is clear that, as a employee of a trainer, petitioner does not qualify under the first category, which includes only jockey[s], jockey apprentice[s] or driver[s] engaged in performing services for an owner in connection with the racing of a horse in New Jersey. Ibid. (emphasis supplied). The second category -- a trainer who otherwise would be considered an employee of the owner -- is similarly unavailing. As the Appellate Division recognized, [p]etitioner was not an employee of [the owner of the horse that injured her], nor was any evidence presented that Coddington was acting as an employee of [the horse owner] in his capacity as a trainer. Fitzgerald v. Tom Coddington Stables, 370 N.J. Super. 582, 584 (App. Div. 2004). Finally, for that same reason, petitioner does not qualify under the third category under N.J.S.A. 34:15-131: a person who is licensed or required to be licensed by the New Jersey Racing Commission who is assisting a trainer who otherwise would be considered an employee of the owner. Therefore, on a straightforward reading of the plain meaning of the statute, petitioner does not qualify as a horse racing industry employee pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-131. Moreover, that plain meaning of Section 131 is supported by the statutory context of the Horse Racing Compensation Act. DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005) (citations omitted) (Although [w]e ascribe to the statutory words their ordinary meaning and significance, we are nonetheless required to read legislative enactments in context with related provisions so as to give sense to the legislative whole. ). It is to that task that we now turn. L. 1995, c. 329, 3, eff. Jan. 5, 1996. Thus, the original iteration of the definition of a horse racing industry employee was closely tethered to that employee s employment with or by a horse owner. That definition, as codified at N.J.S.A. 34:15-130, was first amended in 1998. Described in Senate Bill No. 91 of 1998 as extend[ing] workers compensation coverage through the New Jersey Horse Racing Injury Compensation Board to additional backstretch employees, L. 1998, c. 11, 1, eff. May 1, 1998, amended the relevant portion of N.J.S.A. 34:15-131 and expanded the scope of coverage to include not only the employees of a horse owner, but also any other person licensed by the commission, who is an employee of . . . a trainer and engaged in performing services for an owner in connection with the exercising or racing of a horse in New Jersey. That point was made clear in the sponsors statement to the 1998 amendments. L. 1998, c. 11, 1. The statement begins: The New Jersey Horse Racing Injury Compensation Board was established by P.L. 1995, c. 329 (C.34:15-129 et seq.) to provide workers compensation insurance coverage to certain racing industry employees (jockeys, apprentice jockeys, exercise riders, drivers and driver-trainers) employed by horse owners. (emphasis supplied). However, the statement continues: This bill would extend the coverage provided through the board to additional backstretch employees by requiring the board to also cover an assistant trainer, stable employee, or any other person licensed by the New Jersey Racing Commission, who is the employee of an owner or a trainer and engaged in performing services in connection with the exercising or racing of a horse in New Jersey. Owners and trainers would be assessed separately for the cost of insurance or self-insurance attributable to the respective employees of owners and trainers. The thoroughbred and standardbred industries would continue to be assessed separately. (emphasis supplied). Thus, under the 1998 amendments, the Horse Racing Compensation Board Act required that the Board provide workers compensation insurance coverage for all enumerated employees of both owners and trainers, which coverage was to be paid for by assessments against both owners and trainers. See footnote 7 Realizing it had expanded greatly the scope of coverage, the Legislature quickly contracted the definition of a horse racing industry employee codified in N.J.S.A. 34:15-131 to something even more limited than its original iteration in 1995. Specifically, L. 1999, c. 378, 1, eff. Jan. 14, 2000, deleted from the definition of a horse racing industry employee any exercise rider[s], . . . driver-trainer[s], assistant trainer[s], stable employee[s], or any other person licensed by the commission, who is an employee of an owner or a trainer[.] See footnote 8 Because petitioner s injury occurred in April 2001, it was this version of N.J.S.A. 34:15-131 that governs petitioner s claim. See footnote 9 That definition does not include a trainer employed by a horse trainer, and not by an owner, because a horse trainer is twice statutorily required - both generally in the Workers Compensation Act as well as expressly in the Horse Racing Compensation Act -- to provide private workers compensation coverage to its employees. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-119 SEPTEMBER TERM 2004 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court LINDA FITZGERALD, Petitioner-Respondent, v. TOM CODDINGTON STABLES, Respondent-Respondent, And N.J. HORSE RACING INJURY COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent-Appellant. DECIDED January 25, 2006 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Rivera-Soto CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY the Judge of Compensation misstated that Coddington Stables owned [the horse that injured petitioner]. The owner of [that horse] was actually an individual identified as Iceachello (phonetic). Petitioner was not an employee of [the horse owner], nor was any evidence presented that Coddington was acting as an employee of [the horse owner] in his capacity as a trainer. Fitzgerald v. Tom Coddington Stables, 370 N.J. Super. 582,584 (App. Div. 2004). Our independent review of the testimony adduced before the workers compensation judge confirms the accuracy of the panel s observations. We are confident that, had this factual error been corrected in a timely manner before the workers compensation judge, the outcome would have been consistent with the result we reach today.