Court Opinion

ID: 9752219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:47:44.903348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:52.239555
License: Public Domain

STEIN, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment of the Court. Its apparent effect is to limit the Court’s holding in Midland Insurance Company v. Colatrella, 102 N.J. 612, 510 A.2d 30 (1986), to cases in which recognition of the workers’ compensation carrier’s lien is necessary to prevent double recovery by an employee who receives both workers’ compensation benefits and a payment pursuant to the employee’s own uninsured motorist policy. I adhere to the view previously expressed in Colatrella, supra, 102 N.J. at 622, 510 A.2d 30 (Stein, J., dissenting), that the Legislature should determine whether and to what extent a workers’ compensation lien should attach to the proceeds of an employee’s uninsured motorist policy, a subject concerning which N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 is silent. A reasonable assumption is that if we had stayed our hand in Colatrella, the Legislature’s preference on *189the issue about which we have been speculating might by now have been revealed.
STEIN, J., concurs in the result.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, and GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.
For reversal — None.