A worker filed for workers’ compensation benefits because of her severe neck pathology, filing three separate claims with three separate employers, alleging that occupational exposure caused her condition. All three employers denied her claim, saying that her neck problems were a result of aging and not because of her work.

Lois Scafuri worked for Sisley Cosmetics, Neiman Marcus, and Bloomingdale’s/Macy’s in the Short Hills Mall, working as a sales assistant at all the stores. She would stock products, call customers, apply make-up for customers and would sometimes have to bring products back and forth to the stockroom. She was diagnosed with myelomacia in 2006. Myelomacia is a softening of the spinal cord and can progress over time even causing loss of movement in lower extremities or a loss of reflexes. She stopped working for Sisley Cosmetics and Neiman Marcus six months after her initial diagnosis and went to work for Bloomingdale’s/Macy’s but she only worked there for a few more months. She had a fusion surgery in December 2007 and started receiving disability benefits through social security.

Before her diagnosis, she had an acute trauma at work in 2005 when she slipped and struck her head on a shelf in the stockroom. She did not file for workers’ compensation at the time, and had a cervical fusion but paid for the procedure on her own because she said she did not want to file for workers’ compensation at the time for fear of being fired. By the time she was diagnosed with myelomacia it was too late to file for benefits related to that incident, since it was not within two years of the accident. In June of 2008 she filed occupational claims with each of her former employers, saying that her work as a sales assistant lifting boxes or packing and unpacking merchandise aggravated her condition.

Other Bloomingdale’s employees testified that the nature of their job was not all that physical and probably would not have contributed to her disability. Scafuri had suffered from lumbar spondylosis since she was 19 (she was born in 1948) and her doctor, Dr. Vaccaro, also testified that she had a progressive disability. Another physician, Dr. Effron, stated that what she did at work was no different than normal activities she would do outside of work and her condition was more likely age related than work related.

The Appellate Court decided that all three of her claims should be dismissed, on the basis that part of the occupational provision of New Jersey statute reads that deterioration of body tissues due to the natural aging process should not be considered compensable.