LORI PERRY v. SAYCO ERECTORS, INC.
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4484-04T24484-04T2
LORI PERRY,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
SAYCO ERECTORS, INC.,
Respondent-Appellant.
Argued June 7, 2006 - Decided June 27, 2006
Before Judges Weissbard and Winkelstein.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, 2005-4447.
Richard K. Tavani argued the cause for appellant (Weber, Gallagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires & Newby, attorneys; Mr. Tavani, on the brief).
Bruce P. Miller argued the cause for respondent (Pellettieri, Rabstein and Altman, attorneys (Vasiliki Pagidas, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Respondent appeals from an April 20, 2005 order of the Division of Workers' Compensation, which awarded petitioner Lori Perry temporary disability benefits for injuries sustained in an accident on February 9, 2005. On appeal, appellant raises the following legal arguments:
POINT ONE
THE COURT ORDER OF 4/20/05 AND SUBSEQUENT ORDER OF 5/18/05 VIOLATED RESPONDENT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AND MUST BE VACATED.
POINT TWO
THE MEDICAL CAUSATION ISSUE COMPELS THIS HONORABLE COURT TO VACATE THE PRIOR ORDERS OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM LAKE.
We have carefully considered these arguments in light of the record and controlling law. We consider these arguments to be totally without merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Consequently, we affirm. We vacate our July 11, 2005 order staying the April 20, 2005 order.
Affirmed.
The notice of appeal was filed under the name Say-Core, Inc. The order appealed from was amended by the workers' compensation judge to reflect the employer as Sayco Erectors, Inc., rather than Say-Core, Inc. At oral argument before this court, respondent's attorney acknowledged that Sayco Erectors, Inc. was appellant's employer at the time she was injured.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-4484-04T2
June 27, 2006
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.