suffer a recurrence. Because the jury found that Dr. Tama had not breached any duty of care owed to Mrs. Campo, the dámages that she might recover if the jury had found otherwise are irrelevant. We also find harmless the trial court’s instructions that plaintiffs could maintain a second action if Mrs. Campo’s cancer were to recur. Plaintiffs argue that the erroneous instruction left the jury with the impression that plaintiff could relitigate Dr. Tama’s liability. They assert that if the jury believed that plaintiffs could recover in the future, it might have been less willing to find Dr. Tama negligent, on the assumption that if the cancer were, to recur, a jury at that time could reconsider Dr. Tama’s liability. See Joy v. Barget, 215 N.J.Super. 268, 272, 521 A.2d 906 (App.Div. 1987) (<HOLDING>); La Rocca v. Ench, 35 N.J.Super. 53, 56, 113
holding so where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had colluded to claim falsely that the plaintiffs physician had informed the claims adjuster that the plaintiff had been released to work and where the plaintiff was later discharged from employment and denied workers compensation benefits holding that workers compensation is the exclusive remedy as a matter of substantive law and hence whenever it appears from the plaintiffs pleadings bill of particulars or the facts that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant the obligation of alleging and proving noncoverage or applicability of workers compensation benefits falls on the plaintiff the court continued stating that waiver may be accomplished by ignoring the issue to the point of final disposition holding that suggestion plaintiff had recourse to workers compensation may have deflected the jury from appropriate consideration of the issues before it holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act holding that under the doctrine the district court should have stayed the diversityjurisdiction case pending the state workers compensation commissions final decision on whether the defendant properly paid certain workers compensation claims