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, employed as a landscaper/groundskeeper, sustained injuries from a workplace accident, leading to a right wrist crush injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, and psychological disorders. At the time of the accident, the Worker was earning an average weekly wage of $377.92 and had been employed for approximately six weeks. The Worker did not return to work post-accident (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Contends that the Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in limiting his permanent partial disability (PPD) and loss of use (LOU) benefits to his average weekly wage, arguing instead for a combined total of $582.00 per week for the duration of 140 weeks (para 4).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Support the Workers’ Compensation Judge's decision to limit the Worker's PPD and LOU benefits to his average weekly wage, aligning with the statutory cap (headnotes, para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in limiting the Worker's PPD and LOU benefits to his average weekly wage pursuant to Section 52-1-47.1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (para 4).

Disposition

• The compensation order entered by the Workers’ Compensation Judge was affirmed, limiting the Worker's PPD and LOU benefits to his average weekly wage (para 11).

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (CYNTHIA A. FRY, J., TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, J., concurring), the court held that under Section 52-1-47.1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Worker's PPD and LOU benefits are correctly limited to his average weekly wage. The court reasoned that workers’ compensation benefits are designed to compensate for the reduction of earning capacity, which is calculated in relation to a worker’s average weekly wage. The statute requires that benefits do not exceed what a worker would earn by continuing to work, emphasizing a weekly basis for benefit calculation rather than a lifetime earnings approach. The court found no legislative intent to consider benefits on a lifetime basis for the purposes of Section 52-1-47.1, but rather on a weekly basis for all other purposes. The Worker's reliance on Baca and Gutierrez was deemed inapplicable as those cases addressed different issues (paras 5-10).