Court Opinion

ID: 9550511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:36:12.790543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:41.113554
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, Justice,
concurring.
Neither the briefs filed in this case nor the opinion addresses an issue, which I believe must be resolved — whether Jones is entitled to compensation for the period that his temporary total disability attributable to his employment overlaps the period during which he would not otherwise have been available for employment due to the non-work related surgery. Few cases address this issue.
In Electronic Associates, Inc. v. Heisinger, 111 N.J.Super. 15, 266 A.2d 601 (1970), an employee who quit her job because of pregnancy was required to undergo surgery to her wrist because of a job related disability. The court held that her reason for terminating employment, namely her pregnancy, was unrelated to the employment. Id. at 604. Since her right to receive wages ceased before the onset of her disabling occupational disease, she suffered no wage loss, and the court concluded that she was not entitled to temporary disability compensation. Id.
Subsequently, in Tamecki v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 125 N.J.Super. 355, 311 A.2d 20 (1973), the court took the same position in a case very similar to that of Jones. Tamecki, who had completed his first year of college, was injured while working during the summer. The injury necessitated emergency surgery. In September, he returned to college as a full time student. During the next year, he had to undergo reconstructive surgery several times. He was awarded temporary disability benefits for this period until he returned to school, but the appellate court refused to *741allow additional compensation for the period until his final discharge by the doctor when his condition became fixed. The court reasoned that he was unavailable for work because of his college program. Id. at 22.
With all due respect to the New Jersey court which decided Tamecki,1 I believe that where a worker is disabled from employment because of work connected disability, he should be entitled to utilize the period during which he is necessarily disabled from work to further his education, to take care of any medical treatment or to engage in any similar activity without forfeiting his compensation benefits. I therefore would hold that Jones is entitled to temporary disability payments for the period which he would have been disabled as a result of the work connected angina attack even though that period may overlap the period of his disability attributable to the surgery.

. Different considerations may be applicable where, as in Electronic Associates, an employee terminates employment for non-work related reasons before the onset of any disability. It is not necessary for us to pass on that question. But see Vetter v. Alaska Workmen's Comp. Bd., 524 P.2d 264, 266-67 (Alaska 1974).