ANGEL ROLON v. WAREHOUSE SERVICES, INC.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4106-04T24106-04T2

ANGEL ROLON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

WAREHOUSE SERVICES, INC.,

Respondent-Respondent.

________________________________

 

Argued: December 6, 2005 - Decided January 10, 2006

(by telephone)

Before Judges Kestin and Lefelt.

On appeal from the Division of Workers' Compensation.

Stephen L. Klein argued the cause for appellant.

George L. Vergne argued the cause for respondent (Joseph Carolan, attorney; Alan S. Arons, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner, Angel Rolon, appeals from an order entered on March 9, 2005, in the Division of Workers' Compensation, dismissing his claim for "failure to sustain the burden of proof." Judge Rosamond expressed the reasons for the ruling in a comprehensive bench decision rendered on the same day. The four arguments petitioner advances on appeal, taken together, embody the contention that the judge's determination was against the weight of the evidence.

In reviewing the matter, we are bound by the substantial evidence rule, a venerable concept enunciated in Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 598-99 (1965), and re-articulated in Earl v. Johnson & Johnson, 158 N.J. 155, 161 (1999):

"[W]hether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record," considering "the proofs as a whole," with due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge of their credibility . . . . and, in the case of agency review, with due regard also to the agency's expertise where such expertise is a pertinent factor.

[Close, supra, 44 N.J. at 598-99 (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)).]

Here, after evaluating all the evidence before him, Judge Rosamond found that petitioner had not sustained his burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his alleged injuries "arose out of and/or within the course of his employment with [r]espondent pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et seq." See Perez v. Monmouth Cablevision, 278 N.J. Super. 275 (App. Div. 1994). The judge found "the testimony of the [p]etitioner [to be] completely lacking in credibility for any number of reasons[.]" We have been given no persuasive reason to discern that these findings do not satisfy the substantial evidence rule.

 
Accordingly, we affirm.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4106-04T2

January 10, 2006