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-Appellant was employed in a sedentary position as a receptionist/dispatcher. After sustaining work-related injuries, she accepted full-time work at her pre-injury wages but chose to work less than full-time, limiting her work hours to less than thirty-five per week due to self-imposed work restrictions. Despite ongoing pain from the work-related injury, no medical professional imposed work restrictions limiting her to less than thirty-five hours per week. The Employer offered and encouraged the Worker to perform her duties within her medical restrictions, allowing her to avoid any tasks she felt unable to perform.

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, David L. Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Denied the Worker modifier benefits based on her refusal to earn pre-injury wages due to self-imposed work restrictions.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) was required by statute to calculate her permanent partial disability based on impairment and modifiers, contending that ongoing pain from work-related injuries justified her self-imposed work restrictions.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Supported the WCJ's decision, arguing that the Worker unreasonably refused employment within her work restrictions, which justified the refusal to pay modifier benefits.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker unreasonably refused to earn pre-injury wages by imposing work restrictions limiting her to less than thirty-five hours per week.
• Whether the Worker’s ongoing pain from work-related injuries justified her self-imposed work restrictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision to deny the Worker modifier benefits.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring): The Court found that the Worker’s arguments did not address the key provision in the settlement agreement allowing the Employer to refuse payment of modifier benefits if the Worker is earning less by unreasonably refusing employment within her work restrictions. The Court was not persuaded by the Worker’s contention that her ongoing pain justified her self-imposed work restrictions, noting that no medical professional imposed such restrictions and that all medical testimony was consistent with the Worker being able to perform her job duties for up to forty hours per week. The evidence also indicated that the Employer accommodated the Worker’s condition, further undermining her claim of error (paras 1-5).