In re Dykas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Recent appeals concerning Sick Leave Injury (SLI) benefits have raised questions on the application of the one-year limit on benefits, particularly with regard to claims arising from carpal tunnel syndrome and similar disorders. N.J.AC. 4A:6-1.6(b)3 currently provides that SLI benefits are limited to a one year period from the initial date of the injury or illness. The longstanding interpretation of this rule, as expressed in decisions by the Merit System Board, has been that the one year period is continuous, and does not consist of aggregate periods of disability which total one year. To clarify the rule in conformance with this interpretation, N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.6(b)3 would be amended to provide that SLI benefits are limited to a period beginning on the initial date of the injury or illness and ending one year from that date. Further, a provision would be added that SLI benefits shall not be paid for any absence occurring more than one year from the initial date of the injury or illness, even if the aggregate period of disability does not exceed one year. With regard to progressive, degenerative or repetitive motion disorders, such as asbestosis or carpal tunnel syndrome, it is nearly impossible to specify “the initial date of the injury or illness” because of the nature of those disorders. Therefore, the Board proposes to add a new N.J.AC. 4A:6-1.6(b)3ii providing that the one year period begins with the first date of disability from work. [ 25 N.J.R. 4824 (November 1,1993).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matter of Musick

2. “If the Board chooses to establish a one-year maximum for the receipt of benefits, an employee whose injury or illness is reported in a timely fashion should not suffer a loss of benefits because there is a medical or practical necessity for a sufficiently long hiatus between stages of treatment so as to extend its entire course beyond one year; as long as the total of benefits received does not exceed a year’s worth of salary continuation. [Id. at 633, 619 A.2d 660 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matter of Musick