Court of Appeals Affirms 60% Industrial Disability Award, Agrees on Commencement Date For Permanency
In Menard, Inc. v. Bahic, No. 14-0239 (Iowa App. Nov. 26, 2014), the commissioner found a 60% industrial disability and concluded that the commencement date for permanency was October of 2012. Defendants urged the court to reverse, arguing that permanency should commence in May of 2011 and that the industrial disability award was inappropriate. The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the agency.
Claimant suffered a stipulated injury to his back in August of 2010. Dr. Igram, although finding that surgery was not appropriate, imposed 20 pound restrictions on claimant, which precluded his former, heavy, work. Claimant was placed on a job in the sales department answering phones and helping customers. He worked on this job from February of 2011 until his termination in July of 2011. He received temporary partial disability benefits during this time, because he was often not provided with his former hours of work.
The employer sought to place claimant in a sales representative job, but a background check revealed he had been convicted of a felony and he was terminated for falsifying his initial job application by not including reference to the felony. The employer ceased paying TPD benefits at this time and converted the benefits to permanency benefits. Claimant continued to receive treatment for his injury and was ultimately found to be at MMI on October 8, 2012.
Before the agency, the employer made two arguments concerning the conversion to permanency. The first was that claimant should have been found at MMI in August of 2011, per the reports of Dr. Igram. The second is that claimant was no longer eligible for temporary benefits because he had committed job misconduct. The deputy concluded claimant had a 60% industrial disability, and that permanency was to commence in October of 2012. The decision was affirmed by the commissioner and by the district court. The district court noted as of the date of his termination, there was an inability on the part of the employer to offer suitable work.
Before the court of appeals, the employer argued that temporary benefits should have ended in May of 2011 (despite agreement at hearing that permanency did not commence until August) and that commencing permanency in October of 2012 was irrational and illogical. The employer contended that claimant was not working in a light duty job, but had actually acquired a new permanent job.
The court first notes that claimant was received TPD benefits in the period from May through July, which conflicted with the employer's contention as to the ending date of the healing period. The court found no merit in the employer's argument that permanency should commence in May. The court concludes that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant reached MMI in October of 2012, which became the commencement date for permanency. Note that although the employer appears to have raised the issue of job misconduct as a defense to payment of benefits, the court of appeals does not directly address this issue, simply referring to this issue in a footnote. The court also affirmed the 60% industrial disability award.
Claimant suffered a stipulated injury to his back in August of 2010. Dr. Igram, although finding that surgery was not appropriate, imposed 20 pound restrictions on claimant, which precluded his former, heavy, work. Claimant was placed on a job in the sales department answering phones and helping customers. He worked on this job from February of 2011 until his termination in July of 2011. He received temporary partial disability benefits during this time, because he was often not provided with his former hours of work.
The employer sought to place claimant in a sales representative job, but a background check revealed he had been convicted of a felony and he was terminated for falsifying his initial job application by not including reference to the felony. The employer ceased paying TPD benefits at this time and converted the benefits to permanency benefits. Claimant continued to receive treatment for his injury and was ultimately found to be at MMI on October 8, 2012.
Before the agency, the employer made two arguments concerning the conversion to permanency. The first was that claimant should have been found at MMI in August of 2011, per the reports of Dr. Igram. The second is that claimant was no longer eligible for temporary benefits because he had committed job misconduct. The deputy concluded claimant had a 60% industrial disability, and that permanency was to commence in October of 2012. The decision was affirmed by the commissioner and by the district court. The district court noted as of the date of his termination, there was an inability on the part of the employer to offer suitable work.
Before the court of appeals, the employer argued that temporary benefits should have ended in May of 2011 (despite agreement at hearing that permanency did not commence until August) and that commencing permanency in October of 2012 was irrational and illogical. The employer contended that claimant was not working in a light duty job, but had actually acquired a new permanent job.
The court first notes that claimant was received TPD benefits in the period from May through July, which conflicted with the employer's contention as to the ending date of the healing period. The court found no merit in the employer's argument that permanency should commence in May. The court concludes that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant reached MMI in October of 2012, which became the commencement date for permanency. Note that although the employer appears to have raised the issue of job misconduct as a defense to payment of benefits, the court of appeals does not directly address this issue, simply referring to this issue in a footnote. The court also affirmed the 60% industrial disability award.
I think workers comp is very necessary in some situations. When the leaders in your work aren't good leaders, then it is important to have someone working for the workers. In other cases, it may not be necessary because the companies are run well. Thanks for the article. http://nyworkerscompattorney.com/services/
ReplyDelete