Ex-lawmaker can remain judge in COVID-19 benefits case, court rules • New Jersey Monitor

A New Jersey judge does not have to recuse herself from a case involving a 2020 law she helped pass through the Legislature as a lawmaker. An appeals panel ruled this on Monday.

The three-judge panel ruled that Judge Joann Downey, who oversees workers’ compensation cases, has the ability to do so is ruling on a case surrounding a 2020 law she sponsored, a law that lowered the bar for essential workers to receive compensation benefits after a COVID-19 infection. Downey served three terms in the Assembly as a Monmouth County Democrat before losing re-election in 2021

‘From a judge personal Knowledge of or experience with certain legislative history does not necessarily mean that the judge is biased or unable to make a fair judgment in the case,” the judges wrote on Monday.

The 2020 law is extended a rebuttal presumption for essential workers who assumed that any COVID-19 infections were related to their duties, making it easier for such workers to receive benefits after an infection.

The case in question involves the estate of an Ocean Township School District teacher who died after contracting the virus. Her estate argues she is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits under the law, which did not explicitly list teachers as essential workers.

Attorneys for the district argued that Downey improperly made a preliminary ruling in favor of the estate. They said she ruled based on an interpretation of the law she developed as a lawmaker, and not on evidence presented to the court.

The district had asked the appeals court to remand the case for trial by a different judge to avoid the appearance of bias, reviving an earlier request for her recusal that Downey denied.

The appeals court rejected those arguments and upheld Downey’s decision was based as far as is known and her legislative past did not unduly influence her.

“Her knowledge of law and legislation was not extrajudicial knowledge, but rather legal knowledge that many judges bring to court,” the judges wrote.

The panel also ignored arguments accusing Downey of being able to do so be called As witnesses in the case, they note that courts are generally not interested in the views of a single lawmaker on the proper interpretation of a statute.

The Rules of Professional Conduct for Workers’ Compensation Judges, which are part of the Ministry of Labor and not the judiciary, define the conditions for denialbut her do not require judges to waive cases involving laws they have enacted.

However, they do where refusal is necessary The impartiality of a judge or the appearance thereof can reasonably be questioned.

Citing court rules, Downey declined to comment Friday before the decision was published.

The appellate ruling affirmed Downey’s determination that teachers are covered under the statute. Although the statute Creating the rebuttable presumption did not explicitly mention teachers, it included language allowing the government to expand coverage to groups of employees who were not specifically identified.

The appeals panel ruled that New Jersey’s Office of Emergency Management added teachers to the list when it adopted guidance from the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration that named teachers as essential workers.

“Even if the statute did not identify teachers as essential workers, it nevertheless included any other worker the governing authority deemed essential,” the court ruled.

The district was still able to undermine this presumption by demonstrating that the teacher’s COVID-19 infection was not related to her work.