Kahle v. Plochman, Inc.
New Jersey Supreme Court
428 A.2d 913, 85 N.J. 539 (1981)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Rosalie Kahle severely injured her back and leg while working in the mustard-packing plant of Plochman, Inc. (defendant). Rosalie was hospitalized several times over the next 10 years, undergoing multiple surgeries. Rosalie suffered significant pain and increasing disability. Unable to return to work, Rosalie took antidepressants, narcotic pain medication, and sleeping pills. Ten years after her work injury, Rosalie committed suicide, leaving behind notes explaining that she could no longer bear her pain, anxiety, and depression. Jan Kahle (plaintiff), Rosalie’s husband, filed a claim for workers’-compensation death benefits on behalf of himself and their two sons. At the hearing, Dr. Theodore Kushner, a psychiatrist who examined Rosalie three months before her death, testified that she was depressed and anxious but free of psychosis. Dr. Kushner had diagnosed Rosalie with post-traumatic anxiety depressive reaction, assessed her at a 40 percent psychiatric disability rating, and concluded Rosalie was totally disabled with no possibility of rehabilitation. Dr. Kushner further testified that Rosalie’s suicide was a direct consequence of her work injury. The compensation judge denied death benefits on the grounds that New Jersey law prohibited compensation for intentionally self-inflicted injuries, and New Jersey had previously adopted a rule under which death benefits were only available for employee suicides if, among other things, the employee did not consciously intend to commit suicide or realize the consequences. Jan appealed, arguing that the rule in that case should be overruled.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clifford, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.