These cases, calendared back-to-back and consolidated for purposes of the court's opinion, present a novel issue: whether a judge of compensation was conflicted from presiding over a matter involving the application of a statute which the judge previously sponsored as a member of the Legislature.
The court held that a compensation judge who formerly sponsored a bill enacted into law is not per se disqualified from presiding over cases implicating or interpreting that law. Rather, the judge must determine whether a reasonable person would doubt the judge's impartiality, given the judge's prior involvement in the legislative proceedings and the issues and facts presented in the case before the judge.
Here, the court found the compensation judge's decision denying respondent's motion to recuse was not an abuse of discretion. The court also affirmed the judge's determination that decedent, as a teacher in a public middle school, was an essential employee under N.J.S.A. 34:15-31.11.