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 underwent a nerve ablation procedure for his lumbar spine and was later evaluated to have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on November 10, 2011. The Worker had previously submitted a letter of resignation, planning to leave his employment before the injury occurred. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarded the Worker 86% permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, including points for physical capacity, training, and skills modifications (paras 7-8, 12).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Employer: Argued that the WCJ erred in calculating the Worker's physical capacity, training, and skills modification points. Contended that the Worker's date of MMI should have been set around the date of his ablation procedure or shortly thereafter, well before the independent medical evaluation (IME). Also argued that the Worker was not entitled to modifier enhancements for PPD benefits because he had submitted a letter of resignation before his injury (paras 2-3, 9).
• Worker: Asserted that the only health care providers who testified regarding the date of MMI determined it to be November 10, 2011. Argued for entitlement to modifier enhancements for PPD benefits and supported the WCJ's calculation of modification points for physical capacity, training, and skills (paras 9-10, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ erred in determining the Worker's date of MMI.
• Whether the Worker was entitled to modifier enhancements for PPD benefits despite having submitted a letter of resignation before the injury.
• Whether the WCJ correctly calculated the Worker's physical capacity, training, and skills modification points for PPD benefits (paras 2-3, 9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ's ruling that the Worker is entitled to payment of 86% PPD benefits, including the contested modification points for physical capacity, training, and skills (para 1).

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge; MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge; J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (Concurring): The panel found the Employer's arguments unconvincing and upheld the WCJ's decisions. The Court determined that substantial evidence supported the WCJ's findings, including the date of MMI, the Worker's entitlement to modifier enhancements, and the calculation of modification points. The Court emphasized the deference given to the WCJ's expertise and the assessment of evidence under a whole record standard of review. The Court also noted that the Employer failed to timely raise certain issues on appeal and did not demonstrate that the issues were viable for amendment. The Court concluded that the Worker's resignation letter and intent to find less physically demanding work did not preclude him from receiving modifier enhancements for PPD benefits (paras 2-22).