PAGE 1. The Entire Timeline. New Jersey Workers Compensation New Jersey Department Of Labor.
Procedural Timeline
2013
- Workers’ Compensation claim filed against K-Mart.
- Docket No. 2013-32780 assigned in the New Brunswick Vicinage.
2013–2021
- Case remained pending for years.
- Medical evaluations, litigation, and settlement negotiations occurred.
Early 2022
Settlement negotiations intensified.
According to the documentary record, both parties reached agreement on the essential Section 20 settlement terms, including:
- Settlement amount.
- Allocation of future medical rights.
- Resolution of the workers’ compensation claim.
The settlement documents were prepared through the Workers’ Compensation Court.
April 18, 2022
Email correspondence confirms ongoing settlement discussions and preparation of final settlement documents.
May 2022
The parties appeared before the Workers’ Compensation Court expecting finalization of the Section 20 settlement.
an annuity-based Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) had been inserted into the proposed settlement documents.
According to your position:
- The MSA annuity had never been negotiated by you or with you.
- It had never been discussed on the record with you.
- It had never been authorized by you.
- You had never signed any document consenting to it.
- CMS had never required one.
You therefore refused to sign the altered settlement documents—not because you rejected the settlement itself, but because you objected to the unauthorized addition of the MSA annuity.
this became the central dispute that has continued ever since.
July 27, 2022
Your treating psychiatrist, Dr. Devendra Kurani, issued a letter stating that you were competent to manage your own finances and medical affairs.
This later became relevant because the court continued insisting upon attorney representation despite your request to complete the settlement yourself.
2022–2023
Instead of resolving the dispute over the unauthorized MSA, proceedings became increasingly focused on requiring counsel before any Section 20 settlement could proceed.
During this period:
- Multiple attorneys entered and left representation.
- The settlement remained unresolved.
- The court repeatedly advised obtaining counsel.
- No evidentiary hearing was held regarding whether the MSA had been authorized.
- No findings of fact were entered resolving the dispute.
March 14, 2023
Defense correspondence acknowledged settlement.
March 31, 2023
Additional emails referenced the prior settlement agreement.
These communications, demonstrate that both sides recognized that a settlement existed and that the dispute centered on implementation rather than whether negotiations had occurred.
October 2, 2023
Further correspondence concerning settlement.
Despite the passage of more than a year:
- No settlement was finalized.
- No trial had begun.
- No ruling had been issued determining whether the MSA had been authorized.
2024
The case remained stalled because of the failure of a ruling or any findings by the court.
You continued requesting:
- enforcement of the original Section 20 agreement;
- removal of the unauthorized MSA;
- final disposition.
No dispositive ruling was issued, why?
Early 2025
Judge Ashley Hutchinson assumed responsibility for the case.
Rather than deciding the settlement dispute, the court began directing the parties toward trial, repeatedly threatening trial but no trial and no ruling.
You maintained that trial was unnecessary because the dispute concerned enforcement of an existing settlement rather than liability or disability.
April 2025
Defense counsel filed certifications characterizing the settlement history differently than your position. Also contradicting his previous communications in emails.
You contend these filings incorrectly portrayed you as refusing settlement rather than refusing the unauthorized MSA. Which couldnt be true according to his previous emails and the 2nd lawyer emails, which confirm settlement reached.
May 21, 2025
The court entered an order directing additional litigation steps, including updated medical examinations.
You objected, arguing:
- medical examinations had become stale only because of the years-long delay;
- the delay resulted from the unresolved MSA dispute;
- requiring new examinations effectively restarted litigation that had already settled.
Throughout 2025
You filed multiple motions, including:
- Motion for Recusal.
- Motion to Stay Proceedings.
- Motion to Finalize Section 20 Settlement.
- Motion requesting adjudication of the settlement dispute.
- Motion declining updated IMEs.
- ADA accommodation requests.
You consistently argued that the threshold settlement issue had to be decided before trial preparation could continue.
November 21, 2025
You filed an Emergency Motion seeking:
- stay of proceedings;
- adjudication of the settlement dispute;
- protection from further litigation until that issue was resolved.
the motion was never substantively decided.
Late 2025
You sought emergent relief from the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division instructed that relief should first be sought in the trial court.
January 22, 2026
The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal.
The court explained that:
- interlocutory review is generally disfavored;
- no immediate irreparable harm had yet been demonstrated;
- trial proceedings remained pending;
- the trial court should first address the matter.
Importantly, the Appellate Division did not resolve the underlying settlement dispute.
March 11, 2026
You filed a Motion for Final Ruling and Disposition requesting the court finally decide:
- whether a valid Section 20 settlement existed;
- whether the MSA had been authorized;
- whether the settlement should be enforced.
No ruling was issued.
No findings of fact were entered.
No conclusions of law were entered.
March–April 2026
The court continued scheduling pretrial proceedings.
However:
- the settlement issue remained undecided;
- no evidentiary hearing occurred;
- no final order resolved the dispute.
April 23, 2026
Judge Hutchinson emailed asking whether you intended to call expert witnesses at trial.
You viewed this as further evidence that the court intended to proceed to trial without first resolving the threshold settlement issue.
yet again trial is mentioned but as before every time trial is mentioned as the solution, no trial ever occurs, does the court even know what it’s doing? Apparently not, no trial again.
June 2, 2026
Defense counsel requested an adjournment while questions regarding settlement-related issues remained pending.
You argue this demonstrates that even years after the original settlement, the case still had not reached final resolution.
Pattern
the procedural history demonstrates the following sequence:
- Settlement reached.
- Unauthorized MSA inserted.
- Petitioner objected only to the unauthorized MSA.
- Settlement never adjudicated.
- Court repeatedly required counsel.
- Years passed without deciding the central dispute.
- Court shifted toward trial instead of ruling on settlement.
- Updated IMEs ordered because the case had become stale.
- Staleness resulted from the unresolved settlement dispute.
- Multiple motions requesting adjudication received no substantive findings resolving the core issue.
Present Status
The case today:
- The original Section 20 settlement has never been adjudicated.
- The unauthorized MSA has never been ruled upon.
- No court has determined whether the MSA was authorized.
- No findings of fact have resolved the dispute.
- The litigation has remained pending for years after the alleged settlement.
- This prolonged failure to decide the threshold issue has deprived you of a meaningful and timely resolution of your workers’ compensation claim.
“When a court refuses to rule, refuses to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that delay prejudices a self-represented litigant for more than four years, what is that called?”
“Can a court’s prolonged failure to rule and issue findings of fact prejudice a pro se litigant? If so, what remedies exist?”
@GovSherrillNJ This timeline documents the procedural history of my New Jersey workers’ compensation case, including years of delay, unresolved motions, and due process concerns. I respectfully request review of the issues presented #NJWorkersComp#DueProcess#NJWC
Refusing to decide and rule and make findings according to the evidence, which that refusal to do their job duties prejudices a pro-se litigant for more than 4 years of this? isn’t this the definition of bias? … but let me continue with more of the evidences as I un-burry them.
I’m being wrongly forced and told by the court that I need a lawyer in order to proceed when I don’t, isn’t this misconduct? Ok so now I get a new lawyer, instead of finalizing the settlement like I was told would be done, to get a new lawyer for that purpose …