Background
Roger Kneezel worked as Lambertville House’s property manager for eighteen years before suffering a compensable work-related injury on December 22, 2019, when he slipped on wet tile while carrying heavy buckets of water, injuring his back and left knee. The parties stipulated the accident occurred in the course and scope of employment. Over the following years, Kneezel received authorized treatment for his back, including lumbar decompression surgery, after an initial carrier-ordered cancellation prompted a successful 2021 motion for medical treatment (MMT) before the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC). Treatment for his left knee — including MRIs and injections — was also authorized and paid for by Lambertville, and the treating orthopedic surgeon at the Rothman Institute recommended knee replacement surgery, which Kneezel declined at the time because injections were managing his pain.
In 2024, Kneezel’s condition worsened and he sought additional knee treatment. Lambertville denied the request. Kneezel’s expert, Dr. Dhimant Balar, examined him in June 2024 and opined to a degree of medical probability that the left knee symptoms were directly related to the 2019 work accident, recommending physical therapy and, if that failed, total knee replacement. Lambertville countered with surveillance from March and June 2024 showing Kneezel walking without difficulty, and a report from Dr. Erik Zachwieja concluding the knee condition resulted from pre-existing osteoarthritis, not the work injury. Kneezel filed a second MMT in August 2024 supported by Dr. Balar’s report. Kneezel testified in November 2024, at which point Lambertville’s obligation under N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.11(a)(4)(i) to disclose its surveillance evidence was triggered. What followed was a months-long pattern of delay, missed deadlines, rescheduled witness dates, and incomplete discovery disclosures, including eleven days of surveillance video for which no corresponding reports were provided.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division affirmed the March 20, 2025 order of the judge of workers’ compensation (JWC) striking Lambertville’s defenses and directing it to authorize the left knee replacement surgery recommended by Kneezel’s treating physicians. The panel found no procedural due process violation. The JWC had provided Lambertville with notice and multiple opportunities to be heard through numerous conferences and written communications over several months. Lambertville’s repeated failure to comply with clear directives — not any denial of a meaningful hearing — led to the order. Critically, Lambertville never filed any written opposition or responsive papers to Kneezel’s February 21, 2025 motion to strike its defenses. Under N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.5(b), a motion is considered uncontested unless responsive papers are filed within fourteen days. Because the motion was uncontested, the JWC was not required to schedule a formal hearing.
The court also rejected Lambertville’s argument that its ongoing discussions with counsel and continued (but incomplete) disclosures constituted de facto opposition or satisfied the doctrine of substantial compliance. Substantial compliance requires, among other things, a lack of prejudice to the opposing party, a series of genuine steps toward compliance, and a reasonable explanation for noncompliance. Lambertville failed to meet those requirements. It had over four months after Kneezel’s testimony to produce the required surveillance materials and provided no adequate explanation for its failure to do so. The panel found no abuse of discretion in the JWC’s decision to impose the sanction of striking defenses rather than compelling production or excluding the disputed evidence, given the prolonged and deliberate nature of Lambertville’s noncompliance and the court’s prior warnings.
Key Takeaways
- Under N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.11(a)(4)(i), a respondent employer in a workers’ compensation proceeding must disclose any surveillance evidence it intends to use at trial once the petitioner has testified — prolonged failure to do so after the JWC’s warnings can support an order striking defenses.
- A motion to strike defenses in workers’ compensation proceedings is deemed uncontested if the respondent fails to file written opposition within fourteen days of service under N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.5(b); informal discussions and ongoing disclosures do not constitute de facto opposition sufficient to avoid that consequence.
- The doctrine of substantial compliance is not a shield for deliberate or protracted discovery noncompliance where the defaulting party cannot demonstrate a lack of prejudice to the opposing side or a reasonable explanation for its failure to comply.
Why It Matters
This decision carries important practical lessons for workers’ compensation defense counsel and carrier representatives. The Workers’ Compensation Act is designed to provide quick and efficient relief to injured workers, and the DWC regulations governing disclosure of surveillance evidence exist precisely to prevent employers from ambushing petitioners with hidden footage at trial. Defense counsel who possess surveillance evidence must understand that the disclosure clock begins running the moment the petitioner testifies — not when the respondent is ready to present its case. Failure to comply with court directives within the time frames established by the JWC will not be excused by informal communications or partial production.
For petitioners’ counsel, this case illustrates the value of promptly and formally moving to strike defenses when an employer’s discovery noncompliance persists despite court directives. The motion, filed in writing and served properly, triggered the fourteen-day clock. Because Lambertville did not respond, the JWC had the authority to treat it as uncontested and enter the order without a hearing. The result — immediate authorization for knee replacement surgery after years of delay — underscores how formal motion practice in the DWC can be an effective tool to protect injured workers’ rights to timely medical treatment.