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 compliance coordinator, began experiencing issues with her supervisor in early 2009. After suffering a back injury at work in September 2009, her employment was terminated in October 2009 following a series of negotiations, resulting in a Separation Agreement and Release. The Worker was later deemed permanently partially disabled and filed a claim for various benefits, including modified permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, which was denied on the basis of the Agreement (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the signing of the Separation Agreement and Release was voluntary but did not constitute a voluntary removal from the workforce. Additionally, contended that the decision to enter the Agreement was not unreasonable (para 8).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellee: Contended that the Worker was offered three options upon termination, including resignation, potential termination due to performance issues, or a negotiated severance agreement. The Employer argued that the Worker's choice to accept the severance agreement constituted voluntary unemployment (paras 10-11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker voluntarily and unreasonably removed herself from the workforce by entering into the Separation Agreement and Release, thereby disqualifying herself from receiving modified PPD benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (para 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a finding of fact to determine the nature of the Worker's alternatives to entering into the Separation Agreement and for an application of the correct law to those facts (para 12).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge James J. Wechsler with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and M. Monica Zamora concurring, found that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) failed to issue a finding of fact on the Worker's options at the time of her termination and did not analyze whether the Worker’s removal from the workforce was unreasonable. The Court assumed, without deciding, that the WCJ did not err in finding that the Worker voluntarily removed herself from the workforce by entering into the Agreement. However, it remanded the case for a determination of the nature of the Worker's alternatives to the Agreement and for an application of the Cordova test, which requires both voluntary and unreasonable removal from the workforce for denial of modified PPD benefits (paras 7-12).