Was New Jersey Custodian who Started Job with Back, Knee Injuries Entitled to Benefits?

What Do You Think?

Claims involving occupational diseases often come down to a battle of experts. A dispute involving a long-time custodian, however, shows that a job description can also impact a claimant’s ability to link his job to his disease.

The custodian in that case passed a physical and began working for Rutgers in 2000. He had pre-existing degenerative conditions, including back and knee injuries. 

Consistent with the university’s official job description, the position was physically demanding. It involved repeated tasks such as hauling heavy garbage bags, scrubbing toilets, shoveling snow, unloading trailers, and mopping, waxing, and buffing floors. His back "was constantly in motion carrying, pulling, pushing, [and] moving,” he said.

Gradually, his pre-existing conditions worsened. . He had daily back pain. His back would lock up, causing stabbing pain. His knee would swell up. He could not stand for long.

Finally, Rutgers terminated his employment, finding him physically unable to perform his duties. He sought workers’ compensation benefits, which the university denied, claiming his pre-existing conditions, not his custodial work, caused the injuries.

The claimant’s doctor testified that the physically demanding and repetitive nature of the custodian’s job tasks over a long period of time significantly contributed to his injuries. 

Rutgers’ expert conceded that performance of job duties such as those the custodian performed can cause aggravation of existing injuries but there was no medical literature to confirm the connection. He also pointed to other risk factors that outweighed the impact of the job-, such as the custodian’s age, obesity, and family history.

A workers’ compensation judge found that the custodian’s job caused his injuries and that he suffered a 74% partial permanent disability. The university appealed that decision.

A compensable occupational disease is a disease that:

1. Arises out of and in the course of employment; and
2. Is due in a material degree to causes and conditions that are characteristic of the particular job or place of employment.

To receive an award for an occupational disease, a claimant must show that the alleged occupational exposure contributed to the disability by an appreciable degree.

Did the custodian have a compensable injury?

A. Yes. His doctor credibly testified that the nature of the job task over a 13-year-period exacerbated the custodian’s existing maladies.

B. No. His doctor didn’t present any scientific data connecting the types of activities he did at work and his back and knee conditions.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Brooks v. Rutgers, No. A-1013-23 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 12/07/25), which held that the custodian’s job contributed to his injuries.

Looking for the full text of this case? Look to Simply Research

The court noted that the WCJ believed the claimant’s description of what his job was like–particularly his recounting of its physically gruelling nature. That description was consistent with the university’s official job description. Also, the WCJ pointed to the repetitive nature of the tasks and the length of the custodian’s employment, in concluding that his duties contributed to the worsening of his existing conditions. 

One telling fact was that the custodian passed the physical exam for the job when he first applied for it. As the WCJ observed, after thirteen years on the job, Rutgers terminated him because it found he had physically deteriorated and could no longer perform his duties. Yet it still maintained that the job did not contribute to his disability. Further, Rutgers provided no evidence that the custodian was injured outside of work during that 13-year-stretch.

Finally, the court rejected the university's argument that there was no medical literature connecting the type of job tasks the custodian performed and his diseases. Scientific proof, the court said, is not required in every case–particularly in a case like this, which largely depended on the work specifically performed by the custodian.

Finding that the WCJ’s ruling was well-reasoned, the appeals court affirmed her finding that the rigorous and repetitive work exacerbated the custodian’s condition to a compensable degree.

All New Jersey content on WorkersCompensation.com is brought to you by Horizon Casualty Services, Inc.

Share This Article: