Search Site
Menu
The Workers’ Compensation Perfume Case

The Workers’ Compensation Perfume Case –
The Fragrant Aroma of a Just Result

A large amount of controversy has arisen over a workers’ compensation decision known as the “perfume case.” In Sexton vs. Cumberland County/Cumberland Manor the N.J. Appellate Court held that a worker was entitled to pursue workers’ compensation benefits because perfume exposure at work aggravated a pre-existing lung condition. Contrary to the opinion of some critics, the holding does not stink. The furor expressed by those opposed to the decision is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of N.J. workers’ compensation law.

The N.J. workers’ compensation law was adopted in the 1911. It confiscated every worker’s right to sue his employer. The law deprives the worker and his family of the right to claim adequate compensation for work-related injury (for example, damages for pain and suffering, future wage loss, spousal claims for loss of society and services, loss of enjoyment of life damages, and the like). Instead, the worker was limited to three potential benefits: authorized medical treatment, temporary total disability, and permanent disability.

As a matter of law, the worker and his family lost the right to sue a grossly negligent or careless employer, even if that gross negligence or carelessness caused serious injury or death. Indeed, the workers’ compensation law confers immunity on the employer to an extreme degree. For example, if an employer negligently fails to maintain safety devices on a dangerous machine and that failure causes amputation of the worker’s arm, the employer’s exposure is limited to workers’ compensation benefits.

To make certain the scales of justice were more fairly balanced, the worker’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits was made less difficult. The worker only needs to prove that the injury “arose out of and during the course of employment.” The “arise out of” component simply means that the cause of the injury was “work connected,” i.e., the worker encountered the risk when engaged in rendering service to his/her employer. The “during course of employment” component is primarily a temporal and geographical concept focusing on if the worker had begun work on premises controlled by the employer.

In addition, because the law was tilted in favor of the negligent employer, workers’ compensation principles further provided that an employer “take an employee as the employer finds him or her.” This means that if an exposure at work aggravated a pre-existing condition of the worker, the worker was nevertheless entitled to workers’ compensation even though the prior medical condition predisposed that worker to suffer more serious medical consequences. As a matter of law, it makes no difference that a different worker, subject to the identical work exposure would incur no injury because that worker had no prior medical condition susceptible to aggravation by such exposure.

The sound reasoning of the Sexton opinion is more readily understood in this context. Mrs. Sexton, during her day at work, was subjected to three separate exposures to perfume sprayed by a coworker. Before that incident at work, the petitioner was routinely employed, was able to perform chores at work and at home, and led a normal life. After the work incident, Mrs. Sexton was repeatedly hospitalized and when discharged from a rehabilitation center weeks after the accident, she was oxygen-dependent. She could barely function. The perfume incident at work, which aggravated Mrs. Sexton’s pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” The incident occurred because both she and her coworker were captives of their employment. She could not have avoided the three exposures on the same day. The contaminated air was a “condition of her employment.” The exposures occurred because of her employment. The debilitating effects of that exposure, the workers’ compensation law was designed to remedy, albeit in a limited fashion.

It must be repeated, a worker cannot sue his employer regardless of how grossly negligent the employer’s conduct or the severity of the worker’s injury. To make up for this immunity, the law requires that the employer accept the employee regardless of his/her pre-existing medical condition. The employer’s insurance company must pay for injuries that arise “out of and during the course of employment,” regardless of fault. Work aggravation of pre-existing medical conditions are protected by the limited remedies available under the workers’ compensation system.

It is hoped that having supplied this information, those opposed to Mrs. Sexton receiving benefits for her debilitating condition would be more tolerant and understanding. By its decision the Appellate Court simply reaffirmed the principles of workers’ compensation law and properly adjusted the scales of justice to protect the worker.

Please contact us at 856-686-3543 for a free consultation in the event you need legal advice involving a work related injury or occupational disease.

– Kenneth A. DiMuzio, Sr.

Speak to a proven New Jersey attorney now
Call 856.238.5183 or click to schedule your free consultation
  • Posted On Lawyers.com

    "Joe Hoffman is amazing. We came to the office upset, concerned and profoundly unsure of what to do. Mr . Hoffman sat with us, explained options, reassured us and told us he would be there for us. He more than delivered on that commitment . If you are considering an legal firm, go no further, Hoffman-DiMuzio needs to be your choice. We cannot say enough about how well we were treated from the moment we sat down until the positive resolution! Stellar customer experience!"

    SEE ALL REVIEWS
  • By Renee Zagarella

    "Wonderful, knowledgeable, kind, and informative! Within days following my free consultation, I was provided with an overview of my appointment with helpful information about my case. I truly appreciate the recommendation I was given at this firm."

    SEE ALL REVIEWS
  • By Anita Campana

    "I was so very impressed with Hoffman DiMuzio from the moment I walked in. Everyone I had come across was so professional and courteous."

    SEE ALL REVIEWS
  • By Anita Campana

    "I mostly saw Peter who got the best possible results for my case. He was extremely knowledgeable and informative. Jodi was always available to answer my questions if Peter was busy and kept me informed. I would recommend this firm to anyone!"

    SEE ALL REVIEWS
  • By Mike W

    "Hoffman DiMuzio is a top notch firm. Their attorneys and staff are extremely knowledgeable and go above and beyond for you. I recommend them to everyone in need of legal service."

    SEE ALL REVIEWS
  • By Harry McCormick

    When my significant other was falsely accused of committing a crime, there was only one place to turn. that place was hoffman dimuzio.

    SEE ALL REVIEWS
  • By Harry McCormick

    "Joe Hoffman Jr took on our case and fought tooth and nail for us. Exposing the truth and serving justice for us, we felt completely vindicated. For any legal matter, criminal, traffic or otherwise, they gained two very satisfied life long customers! Thank you Mr Hoffman!"

    SEE ALL REVIEWS
Joseph J.  Hoffman, Jr. Attorney Photo
Joseph J. Hoffman, Jr.
Senior Partner

For more than 40 years, Mr. Hoffman has protected the interest of his clients through diligence and hard work on legal matters, both large and small. An honors graduate of Rutgers University Law School and a native of Gloucester County, Mr. Hoffman has won numerous accolades for excellence in the practice of law.

Kenneth A. DiMuzio, Sr. Attorney Photo
Kenneth A. DiMuzio, Sr.
Senior Partner

An attorney with over 45 years of professional experience, Mr. DiMuzio concentrates his practice on personal injury and workers’ compensation matters. A graduate of Georgetown University Law School and a native of Gloucester County, Mr. DiMuzio has been honored time and again for his professionalism and ethics in the practice of law.

Ernest L.  Alvino, Jr. Attorney Photo
Ernest L. Alvino, Jr.
Attorney

About Ernest L. Alvino, Jr. concentrates his practice in the area of workplace injuries; construction accidents; product injuries; trucking accidents; auto injuries; medical negligence and crime victim advocacy. Ernie is a lifelong Gloucester County resident, living in Mullica Hill with his wife and children. Ernie worked his way through school as a Teamster and construction…

Jeremiah J. Atkins Attorney Photo
Jeremiah J. Atkins
Attorney

About Mr. Atkins joined the firm of Hoffman DiMuzio in February 2010. Mr. Atkins represents individuals and corporate clients in commercial and employment litigation. Mr. Atkins’ practice covers a wide variety of employment-related matters before New Jersey State and Federal courts, with a focus on discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, family leave and whistleblowing claims. Mr.…

Peter J. Bonfiglio, III Attorney Photo
Peter J. Bonfiglio, III
Attorney

About Mr. Bonfiglio concentrates his practice in the area of municipal court with an emphasis on defense of individuals charged with driving while intoxicated and/or refusal to submit to a breath test. Pete resides in Gloucester Township, Camden County with his wife and two of his three children.  In addition to his law practice, he…

  • Imagine... One law firm, for life.


    New Jersey attorneys for all legal matters

    For all life's stages. For all South Jersey.

Six convenient locations


We'll meet at the office nearest you

  • Franklinville
  • Turnersville
  • Mullica Hill
  • Woodbury
  • Sewell
  • Philadelphia
Take action now by filling out the form below

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship, but a lawyer from our firm will contact you as soon as possible.

Quick Contact Form