BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN v. TOWNSHIP OF UNIOn

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-0606-16T3

BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN,

        Petitioner-Respondent,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF UNION,

     Respondent-Appellant.
______________________________

              Submitted November 15, 2017 – Decided December 12, 2017

              Before Judges Alvarez and Currier.

              On appeal from the Division of Workers'
              Compensation,  Department  of  Labor  and
              Workforce Development, Claim Petition No.
              2016-1601.

              Florio Kenny Raval, LLP, attorneys for
              appellant (Edward J. Florio, of counsel and
              on   the  brief;   Keith   Kandel and  Paul
              Samouilidis, on the briefs).

              Savo, Schalk, Gillespie, O'Grodnick & Fisher,
              PA, attorneys for respondent (Christopher M.
              Corsini, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Respondent Township of Union appeals the final decision by

the Division of Workers' Compensation (Division), which approved
petitioner Brian McLaughlin's claim for medical and temporary pay

benefits.    After reviewing the contentions in light of the record

and applicable principles of law, we affirm.

     Petitioner is employed by the Township as a police officer.

He claims that, while on duty, he injured his foot while walking

down some stairs in the police station.         Petitioner testified at

the workers' compensation hearing that he advised his supervisor,

Sergeant    Matthew   Brescia,   of   the   injury   that   same   evening.

Although the pain persisted, petitioner did not seek any treatment

for the foot for several weeks.

     Approximately three weeks later, petitioner told Lieutenant

Frank Marano that he had injured his foot at work several weeks

earlier, that the pain had become intolerable, and that he needed

to go to the hospital for treatment.         Petitioner advised that he

had told Brescia about the injury on the night it had occurred.

When queried by Marano, Brescia told him he did not recall any

conversation with petitioner about an injury.

     Petitioner was seen in the emergency department where x-rays

were taken, and he was referred to a foot specialist.                    The

specialist recommended an MRI and placed petitioner in a walking

boot.   The Township subsequently determined the injury did not

occur at work, and petitioner has not undergone any further



                                      2                             A-0606-16T3
treatment.       He   brought    this    claim       for    medical    benefits     and

temporary pay.

     Sergeant Brescia testified that he did not recall having any

conversation with petitioner about a foot injury.                           He said he

first learned about the injury from Lieutenant Marano several

weeks after it had occurred.                 Brescia further testified that

customarily, an incident report is filled out after any report of

an injury.       There was no report filled out until the night

petitioner advised Marano that he needed to go to the hospital.

     In   a    written      decision    on    July    29,    2016,     the    workers'

compensation judge concluded that petitioner had sustained a work-

related injury.       He stated:

                   There is no proof of another injury or
              incident and I believe Petitioner that he
              thought it was minor in nature at the time and
              would resolve itself. . . .

                   I make this finding based upon the
              credibility of the witnesses and the totality
              of the factual circumstances in this case.
              Regardless of the timing of it being reported
              or Police Department Policy, I find that an
              incident involving petitioner's left foot
              occurred while petitioner was on the job.

     Petitioner       was    awarded    medical       treatment       and    temporary

disability benefits and was authorized to undergo an MRI.                          This

appeal followed.




                                         3                                     A-0606-16T3
      "[T]he scope of appellate review of factual findings by a

judge of compensation is limited."            Renner v. AT&T, 
218 N.J. 435,

448 (2014) (citing Close v. Kordulak Bros., 
44 N.J. 589, 599

(1965)).       "The question for a court is 'whether 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."           Hobson v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,


435 N.J. Super. 377, 388 (App. Div. 2014) (quoting Kordulak Bros.,

supra,    
44 N.J.   at   599).     A   petitioner     bears   the   burden       of

establishing the compensability of the claim being made.                       Perez

v. Monmouth Cable Vision, 
278 N.J. Super. 275, 282 (App. Div.

1994), certif. denied, 
140 N.J. 277 (1995).

      Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo on appeal.               Manalapan

Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 
140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)

("A   trial     court's     interpretation    of   the    law    and   the     legal

consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to

any special deference.").           The same standard applies to the legal

rulings    of      a   compensation       judge.       Sexton     v.    Cty.        of

Cumberland/Cumberland Manor, 
404 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (App. Div.

2009).

      The Township argues that the judge's factual findings and

legal determinations were not supported by the relevant evidence,

                                          4                                  A-0606-16T3
and that petitioner did not meet his burden of proving that the

injury was work related.        We disagree.    The judge made credibility

findings    and   cited   the    evidence    that   supported    his   factual

findings.    The only discrepancy in the witnesses' testimony was

the conversation petitioner claimed to have had with Brescia about

the injury at the time it occurred.                 Brescia, however, only

testified that he did not recall a conversation.                The judge did

not find that testimony sufficient to compel a determination that

no injury had occurred.         There were no other proofs presented to

refute petitioner's testimony as to the origin of his foot injury

nor was there any testimony of a preexisting condition or prior

injury to the foot.

     We    are    satisfied     that   the   judge's   determinations      were

supported by the substantial credible evidence in the record.

     Affirmed.




                                        5                              A-0606-16T3