About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2014 Rutgers U. L. Rev. Comments. 1 (2014)

handle is hein.journals/rgsusty2014 and id is 1 raw text is: RUTGERS LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIES FEBRUARY 18, 2014 IN THE WAKE OF THE ZIMMER DECISION, CAN A TORT PLAINTIFF INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY AWARD AT THE TIME OF TRIAL? Patrick D. Heller, Esq. * Recently, in the published decision of Villanueva v. Zimmer, the Appellate Division has settled an arguably open issue of law, namely of what evidentiary value is a personal injury plaintiff's Social Security Administration (SSA) disability award at the time of the injured party's trial.1 In Zimmer, the court held the Law Division judge correctly barred evidence of that award during the trial.2 BACKGROUND This case was debatably an open area of law in the personal injury context. As per a 2001 Appellate Division published decision, Golian v. Golian, the issue had already been resolved in the context of employability in a family law setting.3 In that decision, the court held that, as a matter of law, not only was an SSA award as to disability admissible at trial, but it was also presumptive evidence of a disability.4 In Golian, the Appellate Division ruled that an SSA determination of disability created a rebuttable presumption of disability in a subsequent unrelated proceeding.5 Specifically, Golian addressed the amount of permanent alimony awarded to the plaintiff wife.6 On appeal the plaintiff argued the trial court erred in refusing to recognize that her prior SSA award of disability provided evidence of disability to refute the argument of imputed income based on apparent employability.7 The trial court had considered the SSA award but held it did not create sufficient proofs that the wife was disabled.8 On appeal, the court noted that an SSA determination did require a finding that the person's physical and mental impairments were of such severity that * Mr. Heller is an attorney practicing primarily in insurance law at the Law Office of Terkowitz & Hermesmann in Somerset, New Jersey. 1. Villanueva v. Zimmer, 69 A.3d 131 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013). 2. Id. at 141-42. 3. Golian v. Golian, 781 A.2d 1112 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001). 4. Id. at 1115. 5. Id. 6. Id. at 1114. 7. Id. at 1113-14. 8. Id. at 1114. 1 Ru' rGER S TA w RF.VTF.W C OMMENTAR T.S FEBRUARY 18, 2014