AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Worker, a school bus driver for Los Lunas Public Schools, injured her back and shoulder on October 8, 2007. During her recovery, she failed to perform a prescribed home exercise program, refused two job offers from her Employer that she was capable of performing at her pre-injury wage, and was determined to have a residual physical capacity for light duty. Consequently, she was awarded no temporary total disability (TTD) benefits after rejecting the job offers and was granted permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits based on specific calculations (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge, March 26, 2013: The compensation order entered by the workers’ compensation judge was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Contended that the WCJ erred in including wages from the 2006-2007 school year in determining her Average Weekly Wage (AWW), found her persistence in an injurious practice by not following a home exercise program, denied her TTD and PPD modifier benefits due to her rejection of job offers, and classified her residual physical capacity as light duty despite evidence of her inability to push or pull with her arms (paras 3, 12-15, 16-28, 30).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees/Cross-Appellants: Argued that the WCJ erred by reducing the Worker's impairment rating by only one percent for her injurious practice when evidence supported a reduction of no less than five percent, and by ordering Employer to pay fifty percent of Worker’s attorney fees because Employer had made a valid offer of compensation prior to the start of trial (paras 3, 11, 32-35).

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ correctly included wages from the 2006-2007 school year in determining the Worker's AWW.
• Whether the WCJ erred in finding the Worker persisted in an injurious practice by not following a home exercise program.
• Whether the denial of the Worker's TTD and PPD modifier benefits due to her rejection of job offers was correct.
• Whether the classification of the Worker's residual physical capacity as light duty was appropriate despite evidence of her inability to push or pull with her arms.
• Whether the WCJ erred in ordering the Employer to pay fifty percent of Worker’s attorney fees.

Disposition

• The WCJ's calculation of the Worker's AWW under Section 52-1-20(B) was affirmed.
• The finding that the Worker persisted in an injurious practice was reversed.
• The denial of the Worker's TTD and PPD modifier benefits due to her rejection of job offers was affirmed.
• The classification of the Worker's residual physical capacity as light duty was affirmed.
• The order requiring the Employer to pay fifty percent of Worker’s attorney fees was reversed.

Reasons

• The WCJ's method for calculating the Worker's AWW was found appropriate based on the wages she received during the twenty-six weeks preceding her injury (paras 5-9).
  The WCJ erred in finding the Worker persisted in an injurious practice as there was no evidence she was prescribed a specific home exercise program by her healthcare professionals (paras 10-15).
  The WCJ correctly denied the Worker's TTD and PPD modifier benefits because the Employer offered her two jobs at her pre-injury wage, which fell within the confines of her release to work (paras 16-28).
  The WCJ's determination of the Worker's residual physical capacity as light duty was supported by the evidence, including medical evaluations and the Worker's release to work (paras 30-31).
  The WCJ erred in finding the Employer's offer of compensation untimely as the trial had not commenced on the date assumed by the WCJ, making the Employer's offer timely and reversing the order for Employer to pay fifty percent of Worker’s attorney fees (paras 32-35).