Court Opinion

ID: 9767188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:12:14.355892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:29.379958
License: Public Domain

*570PER CURIAM.
We affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Fritz in his opinion below. 187 N.J.Super. 129 (App.Div.1982). We note that when the Legislature added a provision for co-employee immunity to the Workers’ Compensation Act in 1961, L.1961, c. 2 (codified at N.J.S.A. 34:15-8), some employers had medical clinics staffed by employee doctors and nurses. If the Legislature had intended to exclude this class of co-employees, it could have expressed that intent. Indeed the Legislature made a comprehensive review of the Act in 1979, L.1979, c. 283, without modifying the co-employee immunity provision despite the pronouncement in Bergen v. Miller, 104 N.J.Super. 350 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 53 N.J. 582 (1969), of the principle enunciated in this case. The employee’s recovery under the Act includes, of course, the consequences of malpractice, the injuries being deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment. Flanagan v. Charles E. Green & Son, 122 N.J.L. 424 (E. & A. 1939).
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, POLLOCK, O’HERN and GARIBALDI — 6.
For reversal —Judge HANDLER — 1.