Louis F. Pandolfo, vs. D&C Chevy/Honda
Submittied by workers compensation attorney, Jeffrey Hark
LOUIS F. PANDOLFO, v. D&C CHEVY/HONDA,This case is highlights why you need an attorney to represent you for workers compensation matters and, for that matter, all matters involving the trial and appellate courts. There are significant legal hurdles petitioners and plaintiffs must satisfy in order to successfully present their cases at the trial level as well as the appellate courts. The Rules of Court, the Rules of Evidence, and burdens of proof issues all come into play.
Here the Appellate Division did not even consider the petitioner’s arguments because they did not even satisfy the legal burdens of proper legal arguments, supported by case law. The court stated: “While petitioner asks that we reverse the court’s decision, his brief, which is devoid of reference to any legal authority and citations to the record, fails to provide any factual or legal bases to warrant a reversal. He does not specify how the judge erred, let alone identify any reversible errors. Because petitioner did not provide any reasons why the decision should be modified or overturned, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal. See Nextel of N.Y., Inc. v. Englewood Cliffs Bd. of Adj., 361 N.J. Super. 22, 45 (App. Div. 2003) (holding that the court will not consider an issue that is based on mere conclusory statements); State v. Hild, 148 N.J. Super. 294, 296 (App. Div. 1977) (holding that parties have a duty to justify their positions by specific reference to legal authority).