Title: Kocanowski v. Township of Bridgewater
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: February 19, 2019

Kocanowski v. Township of Bridgewater Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Seventeen-year veteran volunteer firefighter Jennifer Kocanowski was injured in the line of duty. She applied and was denied temporary disability benefits because she did not have outside employment. In this appeal, the issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's consideration was whether volunteer firefighters had to be employed to be eligible for temporary disability benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146. The Appellate Division affirmed the compensation judge’s determination that pre-injury outside employment was a necessary predicate to awarding temporary disability benefits to volunteer firefighters, holding that there "first must be an entitlement by the volunteer to payment of temporary benefits. That payment depends on proof of lost wages." The Supreme Court reversed: "While N.J.S.A. 34:15-75’s language is unclear, its legislative history indicates a strong intent to provide temporary disability coverage to volunteer firefighters at the maximum compensation provided for in the Act." Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of New Jersey? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of New Jersey. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . SYLLABUSThis 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 Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized. Jennifer Kocanowski v. Township of Bridgewater (A-55-17) (080510)Argued January 3, 2019 -- Decided February 19, 2019TIMPONE, J., writing for the Court. Jennifer Kocanowski was a volunteer firefighter for seventeen years and was injured in the course of her duties. Kocanowski applied for and was denied temporary disability benefits because she did not have outside employment. In this appeal, the Court considers whether volunteer firefighters must be employed to be eligible for temporary disability benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146. Kocanowski served fifteen years at the Finderne Fire Department in the Township of Bridgewater. In addition to her volunteer work, Kocanowski usually had outside paid employment, including working as a nanny and home health care aide. Kocanowski took a six-month leave from volunteer firefighting after her father’s death to care for her ill mother and settle her father’s estate. She returned to volunteer firefighting around July 2014, but did not resume outside employment. In March 2015, Kocanowski and other volunteer firefighters from Bridgewater responded to a multi-alarm fire in Franklin Township. While carrying equipment, Kocanowski slipped on ice. She broke the upper shaft of her right fibula, severely damaged her ankle, and tore several ligaments. Her doctors discovered two fractures in her foot, a torn meniscus in her acutely arthritic left knee, damage to the peroneal nerve on her right leg, and impairment to her back -- all sustained as a result of the fall. Kocanowski continues to experience issues with her back, legs, and feet, all of which impede her ability to return to volunteer firefighting and her previous outside employment as a nanny or home health care aide. Kocanowski has also been unable to continue caring for her mother since the accident. Her injuries and the accompanying pain limit her ability to drive more than very short distances. Kocanowski received $125 per week in benefits from the Finderne Fire Department for one year following the accident. She has no other source of income. The Division of Workers’ Compensation judge heard and denied Kocanowski’s application for temporary benefits in March 2016. The judge acknowledged that N.J.S.A. 34:15-75 awards “maximum compensation” to volunteer firefighters injured in the course of their volunteer work but found that temporary disability benefits were intended as a wage- replacement. The judge therefore concluded Kocanowski was not entitled to temporary disability benefits because she had not been employed at the time of her accident. 1 Kocanowski appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the compensation judge’s determination that pre-injury outside employment is a necessary predicate to awarding temporary disability benefits to volunteer firefighters. 452 N.J. Super. 476, 478, 483 (App. Div. 2017). The Appellate Division ultimately concluded “that although a volunteer firefighter is entitled to temporary benefits at the maximum rate . . . there first must be an entitlement by the volunteer to payment of temporary benefits. That payment depends on proof of lost wages.” Id. at 485. The Court granted Kocanowski’s petition for certification. 232 N.J. 413 (2018).HELD: The Appellate Division’s judgment is reversed. While N.J.S.A. 34:15-75’s language is unclear, its legislative history indicates a strong intent to provide temporary disability coverage to volunteer firefighters at the maximum compensation provided for in the Act.1. The Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial legislation and should be given liberal construction in order that its beneficent purposes may be accomplished. Under the Act, volunteer firefighters may recover temporary disability benefits, and their compensation shall “[b]e based upon a weekly salary or compensation conclusively presumed to be received by such person in an amount sufficient to entitle him [or her], or, in the event of his [or her] death, his [or her] dependents, to receive the maximum compensation by this chapter authorized.” N.J.S.A. 34:15-75(a). The statute’s reference to “based upon a weekly salary or compensation conclusively presumed to be received” is unclear, and so the Court turns to extrinsic evidence of the Legislature’s intent, including legislative history. (p. 9)2. Workers’ compensation was first provided for in New Jersey in 1911. The original Act created a waiting period during which temporary disability benefits were unavailable. In 2001, the waiting period was waived for volunteer firefighters. In 1931, the Legislature created a requirement that “every municipality, and the committee of every fire district . . . provide compensation insurance for volunteer firemen.” L. 1931, c. 172, § 1. The statute created certain protections for volunteer firefighters who did not have ordinary wages or salaries or who were unemployed at the time of their injury, allowing unemployed volunteer firefighters to recover based on their most recent previous income. Ibid. The statute was amended in 1952 to its current form. In Cuna v. Board of Fire Commissioners, the Court provided a brief history of measures adopted by the Legislature to encourage the formation and maintenance of volunteer fire companies. 42 N.J. 292, 295-97 (1964). (pp. 10-12)3. It would be incongruous and inconsistent, after years of expanding protections and exemptions for volunteer firefighters, for the Legislature to abruptly limit the class of volunteer firefighters who qualify for temporary disability from any volunteer firefighter who had ever been employed to only volunteer firefighters employed at the time of injury. The extrinsic evidence and legislative history decidedly indicate the Legislature intended to increase temporary disability coverage for volunteer firefighters injured in the course of performing their duties when it enacted the current form of N.J.S.A. 34:15-75, and not create new barriers to coverage. N.J.S.A. 34:15-75 authorizes all volunteer firefighters injured in 2 the course of performing their duties to receive the maximum compensation permitted, regardless of their outside employment status at the time of injury. (pp. 12-13)4. Defendant urges that language in N.J.S.A. 34:15-38 like “first unable to continue at work” and “able to resume work” demonstrates temporary disability only applies when the claimant was working at the onset of his or her disability. Nothing in either the plain language of the statutes or their legislative histories indicates such an intent. Indeed, N.J.S.A. 34:15-38 existed alongside the pre-1952 version of N.J.S.A. 34:15-75, which allowed volunteer firefighters who were unemployed at the time of their injury to receive benefits. N.J.S.A. 34:15-38 did not bar benefits then. There is no reason to think it does now. To require prior outside employment in order to qualify for N.J.S.A. 34:15-75’s presumption of entitlement of the maximum compensation would lead to absurd results. (pp. 13-15) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Division of Workers’ Compensation.CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, and SOLOMON join in JUSTICE TIMPONE’S opinion. 3 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 55 September Term 2017 080510 Jennifer Kocanowski, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Township of Bridgewater, Respondent-Respondent. On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 452 N.J. Super. 476 (App. Div. 2017). Argued Decided January 3, 2019 February 19, 2019Galen W. Booth argued the cause for appellant (Law Offices of Galen W. Booth, attorneys; Galen W. Booth and Peter Ventrice, of counsel and on the briefs).Jennifer A. Cottell argued the cause for respondent (Capehart & Scatchard, attorneys; Jennifer A. Cottell, on the briefs, and John H. Geaney, of counsel and on the briefs).Jeffrey S. Monaghan argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman, attorneys; Jeffrey S. Monaghan, on the brief). 1 Pablo N. Blanco submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Advisory Council on Safety and Health (The Blanco Law Firm, attorneys). JUSTICE TIMPONE delivered the opinion of the Court. Jennifer Kocanowski was a volunteer firefighter for seventeen years andwas injured in the course of her duties. Kocanowski applied for and wasdenied temporary disability benefits because she did not have outsideemployment. In this appeal, we consider whether volunteer firefighters mustbe employed to be eligible for temporary disability benefits under theWorkers’ Compensation Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of temporary disabilitybenefits by the Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding Kocanowski’sunemployment at the time of injury precluded her from receiving coverage. We now reverse the Appellate Division’s judgment. While N.J.S.A.34:15-75’s language is unclear, we find its legislative history indicates a strongintent to provide temporary disability coverage to volunteer firefighters at themaximum compensation provided for in the Act. 2 I. A. We elicit the following facts from the testimony before the Division ofCompensation. Kocanowski was a volunteer firefighter for approximately seventeenyears; she served fifteen of those years at the Finderne Fire Department in theTownship of Bridgewater. During her fifteen years working for the FinderneFire Department, Kocanowski several times received “Top 10” and “Top 5”responder recognition. In addition to her volunteer work, Kocanowski usually had outside paidemployment, including working as a nanny and home health care aide. InOctober 2013, Kocanowski left her outside employment to provide care for herill father. Kocanowski’s father died in November 2013, and she lost herbrother shortly thereafter. Her home health aide license lapsed while she wascoping with family issues. Kocanowski took a six-month leave from volunteer firefighting after herfather’s death to care for her ill mother and settle her father’s estate. Shereturned to volunteer firefighting around July 2014, but did not resume outsideemployment. 3 On March 6, 2015, Kocanowski and other volunteer firefighters fromBridgewater responded to a multi-alarm fire in Franklin Township. Whilecarrying equipment, Kocanowski slipped on ice. She broke the upper shaft ofher right fibula, severely damaged her ankle, and tore several ligaments. Kocanowski underwent surgery and received numerous medicaltreatments for her injuries, but she began to experience back pain and kneepain in addition to her ankle pain in the weeks after the accident. Her doctorsdiscovered two fractures in her foot, a torn meniscus in her acutely arthriticleft knee, damage to the peroneal nerve on her right leg, and impairment to herback -- all sustained as a result of the fall. Kocanowski underwent anothersurgery, further treatments, and intensive physical therapy. Yet, she continuesto experience issues with her back, legs, and feet, all of which impede herability to return to volunteer firefighting and her previous outside employmentas a nanny or home health care aide. Kocanowski has also been unable tocontinue caring for her mother since the accident. Her injuries and theaccompanying pain limit her ability to drive more than very short distances. Kocanowski received $125 per week in benefits from the Finderne FireDepartment for one year following the accident. She has no other source ofincome. 4 B. On December 14, 2015, Kocanowski filed a Notice of Motion forTemporary and/or Medical Benefits, including a request for a 25% additionalpenalty for failure to pay timely temporary disability benefits. The Division of Workers’ Compensation judge heard and deniedKocanowski’s application for temporary benefits on March 9, 2016. The judgeacknowledged that N.J.S.A. 34:15-75 awards “maximum compensation” tovolunteer firefighters injured in the course of their volunteer work but foundthat temporary disability benefits were intended as a wage-replacement. Thejudge therefore concluded Kocanowski was not entitled to temporary disabilitybenefits because she had not been employed at the time of her accident. C. Kocanowski appealed, arguing the compensation judge had erred infinding an outside employment requirement before volunteer firefighters wereeligible to receive temporary disability benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the compensation judge’s determinationthat pre-injury outside employment is a necessary predicate to awardingtemporary disability benefits to volunteer firefighters. Kocanowski v.Township of Bridgewater, 452 N.J. Super. 476, 478, 483 (App. Div. 2017).The panel analyzed N.J.S.A. 34:15-38 (which provides the method of 5 calculating compensation for temporary disability benefits), with heavyemphasis on the language “able to resume work.” Id. at 481-82, 484. Relyingon Outland v. Monmouth-Ocean Education Service Commission, 154 N.J. 531(1998), and Cunningham v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 386 N.J. Super. 423 (App. Div. 2006), the panel determined a claimant must provide proof oflost income in order to receive temporary disability benefits. Kocanowski, 452 N.J. Super. at 484-85. The Appellate Division found the award of temporary disability benefitsto an unemployed volunteer firefighter in Capano v. Bound Brook Relief FireCo., 356 N.J. Super. 87 (App. Div. 2002), did not control because that caseturned on whether the claimant’s injury occurred “in the line of duty,” insteadof the issue raised here. Kocanowski, 452 N.J. Super. at 485. The AppellateDivision ultimately concluded “that although a volunteer firefighter is entitledto temporary benefits at the maximum rate . . . there first must be anentitlement by the volunteer to payment of temporary benefits. That paymentdepends on proof of lost wages.” Ibid. We granted Kocanowski’s petition for certification. 232 N.J. 413(2018). We also granted the New Jersey Association for Justice (NJAJ) leaveto appear as amicus curiae. The New Jersey Advisory Council on Safety and 6 Health (COSH), which appeared as amicus before the Appellate Division,participated as amicus before this Court pursuant to Rule 1:13-9. II. A. Kocanowski urges us to reverse the Appellate Division and find she isentitled to temporary disability benefits. Kocanowski argues that the typicalrequirement that temporary disability benefits be awarded only to replace lostwages does not apply to volunteer firefighters. Kocanowski emphasizes thestatutory history of the Act, particularly as it relates to an expansion ofprotections for volunteer firefighters over time. B. Amici curiae COSH and NJAJ each support and echo many of thearguments made by Kocanowski. COSH and NJAJ highlight the relevance ofCuna v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 42 N.J. 292 (1964), and Capano, 356 N.J. Super. 87. C. Defendant Township of Bridgewater asks us to affirm the AppellateDivision, arguing temporary disability benefits are intended to replace lostwages and consequently are unavailable to unemployed volunteer firefightersinjured in the line of duty. Defendant emphasizes language in N.J.S.A. 34:15-38, which calculates temporary disability compensation with reference to when 7 an “employee is first unable to continue at work” and when “the employee isable to resume work.” III. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Fuqua, 234 N.J. 583, 591 (2018). “The Legislature’s intent is the paramount goalwhen interpreting a statute and, generally, the best indicator of that intent isthe statutory language.” DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005). Acourt normally ascribes to the statute’s words their “generally acceptedmeaning,” Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., 232 N.J. 504, 514-15 (2018)(quoting N.J.S.A. 1:1-1), and construes them “in context with relatedprovisions so as to give sense to the legislation as a whole,” id. at 515 (quotingN. Jersey Media Grp. v. Township of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541, 570 (2017)). “[I]f there is ambiguity in the statutory language that leads to more thanone plausible interpretation, we may turn to extrinsic evidence, 'includinglegislative history, committee reports, and contemporaneous constructio n.’”DiProspero, 183 N.J. at 492-93 (quoting Cherry Hill Manor Assocs. v. Faugno, 182 N.J. 64, 75 (2004)). We also consider “extrinsic evidence 'if a literalreading of the statute would yield an absurd result, particularly one at oddswith the overall statutory scheme.’” State v. Twiggs, 233 N.J. 513, 533 (2018)(quoting In re N.B., 222 N.J. 87, 98-99 (2015)). 8 IV. “We have long recognized that [the Workers’ Compensation Act] isremedial legislation and should be given liberal construction in order that itsbeneficent purposes may be accomplished.” Estate of Kotsovska v. Liebman, 221 N.J. 568, 584 (2015) (alteration omitted) (internal quotation omitted)(quoting Cruz v. Cent. Jersey Landscaping, Inc., 195 N.J. 33, 42 (2008)).Under the Act, volunteer firefighters may recover temporary disabilitybenefits: Compensation for injury and death, either or both, of any volunteer fireman . . . [or] emergency management volunteer doing emergency management service . . . shall: a. Be based upon a weekly salary or compensation conclusively presumed to be received by such person in an amount sufficient to entitle him [or her], or, in the event of his [or her] death, his [or her] dependents, to receive the maximum compensation by this chapter authorized . . . . b. Not be subject to the seven-day waiting period provided in [N.J.S.A. 34:15-14]. [N.J.S.A. 34:15-75.] The statute’s reference to “based upon a weekly salary or compensationconclusively presumed to be received” is unclear. Ibid. Accordingly, we turnto “extrinsic evidence, 'including legislative history.’” DiProspero, 183 N.J. at 492-93 (quoting Cherry Hill Manor Assocs., 182 N.J. at 75). 9 As background to the interpretive question before us, we note workers’compensation was first provided for in New Jersey in 1911. L. 1911, c. 95.The initial law capped temporary disability benefits at “fifty per centum of thewages received at the time of injury, subject to a maximum compensation often dollars per week and a minimum of five dollars per week.” Id. § 11(a).The original Act provided that if an employee earned “less than five dollarsper week, then he shall receive the full amount of such wages per week.” Ibid.The Act also created a waiting period during which temporary disabilitybenefits were unavailable. The waiting period is currently seven days. N.J.S.A. 34:15-14. In 2001, the seven-day waiting period was waived forvolunteer firefighters. L. 2001, c. 328 (codified at N.J.S.A. 34:15-75(b)). In 1931, the Legislature created a requirement that “every municipality,and the committee of every fire district . . . provide compensation insurancefor volunteer firemen.” L. 1931, c. 172, § 1. This statute, the predecessor to N.J.S.A. 34:15-75, provided “payments of compensation shall be based uponthe weekly salary or compensation received by such volunteer fireman inprivate employment.” Id. § 2. The statute created certain protections forvolunteer firefighters who did not have ordinary wages or salaries or who wereunemployed at the time of their injury: [A]ny volunteer fireman whose income is derived from any source other than wages or salaries shall be entitled 10 to receive the maximum compensation . . . and where not employed at the time of . . . injury, such compensation shall be ascertained and paid upon the basis of the weekly compensation last received by such person when so employed. [Ibid.] The statute allowed unemployed volunteer firefighters to recover basedon their most recent previous income. The statute was amended in 1952 to itscurrent form. L. 1952, c. 316, § 2 (codified at N.J.S.A. 34:15-75). Volunteer firefighters have long held an important role in New Jersey.The Legislature has long sought to encourage that role by providing certainprotections and exemptions for volunteer firefighters. In Cuna, this Courtprovided a brief history of volunteer firefighters in New Jersey, ourmunicipalities’ reliance on them for protection, and several measures adoptedby the Legislature “to encourage the formation and maintenance of suchcompanies.” See 42 N.J. at 295-97 (discussing, among other legislative acts:L. 1826, p. 36, § 1, titled “An act for the encouragement of Fire Companies,”which exempted volunteer firefighters “from militia duty in time of peace”; L.1880, c. 128, § 1 (repealed by L. 1995, c. 44, § 3), which exempted firefighterswith seven consecutive years’ experience from jury duty, and its update via L.1903, c. 77 § 1, which removed the requirement of consecutive service; and N.J.S.A. 45:24-9, a current statute that includes firefighters among several 11 groups granted special licenses “to hawk, peddle and vend any goods, wares ormerchandise or solicit trade within this State”). As noted by the Cuna Court,“[t]hese provisions indicate a deliberate recognition by the Legislature of th egreat benefits conferred upon municipalities by the volunteer fire companies.”Id. at 297. In recognition of the protections and benefits the Legislature has createdfor volunteer firefighters, our courts have liberally construed the Workers’Compensation Act to provide coverage for volunteer firefighters. See, e.g.,Cuna, 42 N.J. at 306 (finding a volunteer firefighter who was injured whileplaying for the department’s baseball team was injured “in the line of duty”);Capano, 356 N.J. Super. at 95 (finding a 93-year-old volunteer firefighter whowas injured while tending the firehouse stove had been performing a “publicfire duty” at the time notwithstanding that he had no outside employment). Itwould be incongruous and inconsistent, after years of expanding protectionsand exemptions for volunteer firefighters, for the Legislature to abruptly limitthe class of volunteer firefighters who qualify for temporary disability fromany volunteer firefighter who had ever been employed to only volunteerfirefighters employed at the time of injury. In sum, the extrinsic evidence and legislative history decidedly indicatethe Legislature intended to increase temporary disability coverage for 12 volunteer firefighters injured in the course of performing their duties when itenacted the current form of N.J.S.A. 34:15-75, and not create new barriers tocoverage. As such, we find N.J.S.A. 34:15-75 authorizes all volunteerfirefighters injured in the course of performing their duties to receive themaximum compensation permitted, regardless of their outside employmentstatus at the time of injury. Defendant urges us to find N.J.S.A. 34:15-38 sets an eligibility standard,requiring temporary disability claimants to provide proof of outsideemployment to be eligible for temporary disability benefits. Notably, thisstatute is a general, all-purpose statute, not specific to firefighters. N.J.S.A.34:15-38 provides a “method of calculating compensation for temporarydisability”: To calculate the number of weeks and fraction thereof that compensation is payable for temporary disability, determine the number of calendar days of disability from and including as a full day the day that the employee is first unable to continue at work by reason of the accident, including also Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, up to the first working day that the employee is able to resume work and continue permanently thereat; subtract from this number the waiting period and any days and fraction thereof the employee was able to work during this time, and divide the remainder by 7. If, however, the total period of disability extends beyond 7 days, the waiting period shall not be subtracted from the number indicated above. The resulting whole number and sevenths will be the 13 required period for which compensation is payable on account of temporary disability. [(emphases added).] Defendant argues language like “first unable to continue at work,” and“able to resume work” demonstrates temporary disability only applies whenthe claimant was working at the onset of his or her disability. We find nothingin either the plain language of the statutes or their legislative histories toindicate such an intent. Indeed, N.J.S.A. 34:15-38 existed alongside the pre-1952 version of N.J.S.A. 34:15-75, which as noted earlier allowed volunteer firefighters whowere unemployed at the time of their injury to receive benefits. N.J.S.A.34:15-38 did not bar benefits then. There is no reason to think it does now,after the amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:15-75 which loosened restrictions andprovided greater protections to volunteer firefighters. Also, it is not a reach to find that volunteer firefighters injured in thecourse of their firefighting duties were at work, unable to continue at workand, in Kocanowski’s case, unable to resume work. While the statutegenerally calls for a “waiting period” before the temporary disability paymentmay be paid, the Legislature clearly exempted volunteer firefighters from thatwaiting period. So, we decline to adopt defendant’s “square peg into a round 14 hole” theory that N.J.S.A. 34:15-38 precludes coverage for volunteerfirefighters injured in the course of performing their firefighting duties. Moreover, to require prior outside employment as suggested by N.J.S.A.34:15-38 in order to qualify for N.J.S.A. 34:15-75’s presumption ofentitlement of the maximum compensation would lead to absurd results.Defendant’s interpretation would allow a volunteer firefighter who completeswork for a nominal salary, say $5 weekly to deliver newspapers, toautomatically receive the maximum compensation authorized while avolunteer firefighter like Kocanowski, who had no outside compensation at thetime of her injury, would receive no temporary disability benefits. Bothfirefighters take the same risks in their duties for the fire departments. It is anillogical result that the former firefighter would receive $855 weekly inbenefits (based upon the maximum available at the time Kocanowski wasinjured), while the latter would receive nothing. In sum, we conclude that the Legislature’s amendment in 1952 creatingthe current version of N.J.S.A. 34:15-75 was intended to grant all volunteerfirefighters the maximum compensation allowed, regardless of current orprevious income. 15 V. We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand thematter to the Division of Workers’ Compensation for the award of benefitsconsistent with the principles outlined in this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, and SOLOMON join in JUSTICE TIMPONE’S opinion. 16