## Facts

- John J. Williams worked for the Port Authority from 1969 to 1997, lived in New York throughout, and entered his employment contract in New York.
- For about four months in 1973, he worked in New Jersey at the George Washington Bridge, cleaning tollbooths and tunnel walls using strong cleaning/degreasing chemicals and while exposed to vehicle exhaust.
- After June 1973, he worked for decades in New York (LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports) performing similar maintenance work with similar chemical and exhaust exposures.
- Williams first sought medical treatment for pulmonary problems in 1993; his expert attributed chronic bronchitis and probable restrictive pulmonary disease to cumulative workplace exposures.
- In 1997, Williams filed an occupational disease claim in the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation, alleging pulmonary disability from exposures between 1969 and 1997.
- Only four months of the alleged exposure occurred in New Jersey; the remainder occurred in New York.

## Issues

1. Whether four months of occupational exposure in New Jersey, followed by decades of similar exposure in New York, constitutes an “injury” in New Jersey sufficient to support subject-matter jurisdiction for an occupational disease claim under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act.
2. Whether New Jersey may exercise jurisdiction when the in-state exposure is not shown to have contributed to the disease in a “material degree.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and vacated the compensation award.
- The Court held the Division of Workers’ Compensation should not have exercised subject-matter jurisdiction because the brief New Jersey exposure did not constitute a compensable occupational disease injury in New Jersey.
- The Court distinguished highly toxic, long-latency exposures (where early exposure may support a presumption of injury for jurisdictional purposes) from ordinary chemical/exhaust exposures requiring proof of material contribution.

## Legal Principles

- A compensable occupational disease must arise out of and in the course of employment and be due “in a material degree” to employment causes or conditions characteristic of a trade, occupation, process, or place of employment.  
- “Material degree” means an appreciable contribution—substantially greater than de minimis—and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
- For New Jersey to exercise jurisdiction over an occupational disease claim, the in-state exposure must constitute an “injury” in New Jersey by materially contributing to the disease; minimal or background exposure is insufficient.
- In cases involving highly toxic substances with long latency (e.g., asbestos-like exposures), injury may be presumed to begin with early exposure and continue throughout exposure for jurisdictional purposes; that presumption does not apply to routine exposures absent proof of material contribution.

## Conclusion

Because Williams’s New Jersey exposure was brief, involved routine workplace chemicals and exhaust rather than highly toxic substances, and was not shown to contribute to his pulmonary condition in an appreciable (more-than-de-minimis) way, New Jersey lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his occupational disease workers’ compensation claim.


Williams v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J., 175 N.J. 82, 813 A.2d 531 (N.J. 2003)