ETTA GILLETTE v. UNION COUNTY DIVISION OF AGING

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2403-04T2

ETTA GILLETTE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNION COUNTY DIVISION OF AGING,

Respondent-Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Submitted February 7, 2006 - Decided February 17, 2006

Before Judges Collester and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department

of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, C.P. No. 95-25231.

Otto Marcano attorney for appellant.

James Jude Plaia attorney for respondent Union County Division of Aging.

Brause, Brause & Ventrice attorneys for respondent The PMA Insurance Group (Peter Ventrice, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following a plenary trial on petitioner's workers' compensation claim, Judge Lake issued a decision dismissing her complaint.

On this appeal, petitioner, Etta Gillette, raises the following issues:

POINT I: The Compensation Court's decision is erroneous and could not have been reasonably reached when the record and proofs are reached as a whole.

POINT II: The Workers' Compensation Court committed reversible error by improperly assessing the testimony of the medical experts.

POINT III: The Trial Court failed to take into consideration procedural issues including objections raised by Appellant during trial including the extent and nature of cross examination by Respondent of its own medical expert and the admissibility of Respondent's expert's report and testimony thereof.

Having reviewed the record, including the entire hearing transcript, we conclude that petitioner's contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief comments.

Petitioner claimed that she had a pulmonary disability caused by her employment, working three hours per day in the kitchen at a Union County Division of Aging facility. She presented expert testimony in support of her claim. But she failed to disclose to her expert that she had a long history of smoking. Judge Lake found the employer's expert witness more credible than petitioner's expert. Accordingly, he concluded that petitioner

has mild obstructive lung disease. I am satisfied this is caused by smoking. . .She also has asthma, which might have been aggravated while she was working, but resolved itself after she stopped. . . I am satisfied she has smoker's bronchitis caused by smoking approximately 20 years, a pack or a pack and a half a day.

Judge Lake's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence, Close v. Kordulak Bros., Inc., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965), and we affirm for the reasons stated in his cogent and thorough oral opinion placed on the record on December 3, 2004.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2403-4T2

February 17, 2006