In Holocker v IWCC, which officially came out yesterday, EE sustained a compensable work injury while operating a crane. He was a transportation operator in a manufacturing facility in Peoria. See relevant facts below:
Arbitrator: Awarded TTD, found R owed benefits after EE was terminated as EE was not at MMI for the work injury at the time of the employment termination.
Commission: Reversed Arb, denied TTD, stating that when analyzing whether TTD is owed, while MMI should be considered, MMI is NOT the sole determinative factor. Analysis should also consider whether the employee is capable of returning to the work force.
Appellate Court: Agreed with the Commission. The Court found the following facts significant:
EE was released to full duty with one restriction of no crane use;
EE continued to work full duty as a transportation operator without being required to operate a crane;
It was not necessary for the employer to either modify an existing job or create a “light duty” position as a certain percentage of transportation operaters never used a crane;
Voc counselor found that the no crane use restriction did not preclude EE from reentering the work force.
The Appellate Court distinguished the instant case from both Interstate Scaffolding and Matuszcak in that in those cases, P was working light duty at the time of termination; therefore, unable to perform the pre-injury job. In the instant case, EE was working full time and full duty in his original job classification prior to the termination.
*** The Court states that the proper analysis when determining whether TTD is owed: (1) has the condition stabilized; AND (2) whether EE is capable of returning to the work force.
Take Away: When an EE is working regular duty, but still treating for work injury (i.e. not at MMI), gets terminated, we have basis to deny TTD based upon this case. I have always taken that position; however, there wasn’t a case on point. Now there is. In the alternative, if EE has a work restriction that the employer is accommodating on a permanent basis, EE is not at MMI, gets terminated, we can dispute TTD. The argument that we owe TTD so long as EE is not at MMI, is no longer the law. MMI is only one part of the analysis, we must also consider whether EE is capable of returning to the work force.
1301 W 22nd St
Oakbrook, IL 60523
222 W. 6th Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
Copyright ASA Law Group 2021. All rights reserved.