WILLIE J. ROACH, JR. v. RUBY TUESDAY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3522-04T23522-04T2

WILLIE J. ROACH, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant/Cross-Respondent,

v.

RUBY TUESDAY,

Respondent-Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

______________________________________________

 

Argued March 29, 2006 - Decided April 13, 2006

Before Judges Weissbard and Sapp-Peterson.

On appeal from the Department of Labor,

Division of Workers' Compensation, Claim

Petition No.2003-4134.

James L. Creegan argued the cause for

appellant (Stark & Stark, attorneys; Mr.

Creegan, on the brief).

Mark B. Spivak argued the cause for

respondent (Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,

Coleman & Goggin, attorneys; Mr. Spivak,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Willie J. Roach, Jr. appeals from a decision of the Division of Workers' Compensation, embodied in a judgment of February 4, 2005, awarding him benefits for permanent partial total disability but refusing to reconstruct his wages to simulate full-time employment. Roach's employer, Ruby Tuesday, cross-appeals from the same judgment.

On appeal, petitioner argues that: (1) the Judge of Compensation erred in deciding not to reconstruct petitioner's wage rate to that of a full time work week for calculation of his permanent disability award; (2) the judge applied an incorrect legal standard to determine whether petitioner suffered a diminution of future earning capacity; and (3) public policy warrants reconstruction of petitioner's wages for the purposes of determining permanent disability benefits. On its cross-appeal, respondent contends that the judge erred in her calculation of petitioner's unreconstructed wage.

We have carefully considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable law. We reject petitioner's arguments substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge of Compensation Dietrich in her thorough and well-reasoned letter opinion of March 29, 2005, filed pursuant to R. 2:5-1(b). See also Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 595-99 (1965). We conclude that respondent's cross-appeal has insufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(3)(1)(A) and (E).

 
Affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-3522-04T2

April 13, 2006