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 by Bee Hive Assisted Living and was offered and accepted restricted duty following an unspecified incident. The Worker was initially assigned to the day shift but was later informed that her schedule would change to include three night shifts and two day shifts. Believing that the night shift work would exceed her capacity and violate her work restrictions, the Worker did not return to work. The Worker also claimed a secondary mental impairment as a result of her employment conditions and contested the classification of her job as medium work, arguing it involved heavy tasks.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that refusal to return to work was reasonable due to the belief that night shift duties would exceed her work restrictions. Claimed entitlement to benefits for a secondary mental impairment, arguing that the expert's testimony supported this claim despite acknowledging the expert's inability to determine causation to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Contested the classification of her job as medium work, arguing it involved heavy tasks.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Argued that the Worker's refusal to return to work was unreasonable, as she would have continued with light duty regardless of shift changes. Contended that the Worker did not meet the burden of proof for causation of her alleged secondary mental impairment and maintained that the Worker's job was correctly classified as medium work.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker's refusal to return to work was reasonable.
• Whether the Worker met the burden of proof to show causation for her alleged secondary mental impairment.
• Whether the Worker's job involved heavy work rather than medium work.
• Whether the Worker was entitled to a point for training due to her inability to work as a caregiver or companion.

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision denying the Worker benefits was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge Roderick T. Kennedy authoring the opinion and Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge Michael D. Bustamante concurring, found the Worker's arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the WCJ's decision. The Court deferred to the WCJ's expertise, finding evidence supported the WCJ's determination that the Worker's refusal to return to work was not reasonable. It was noted that the Worker's supervisor testified she would have continued with light duty, contradicting the Worker's belief that night shift work would exceed her restrictions. Regarding the secondary mental impairment, the Court agreed with the WCJ that the Worker's expert testimony was equivocal and did not establish causation to a reasonable degree of medical probability. On the issue of job classification, the Court found no evidence to support the claim that the Worker's job involved heavy work, noting the supervisor's testimony that most tasks were at a sedentary to light level. Lastly, the Court affirmed the WCJ's finding that the Worker was not entitled to a point for training, as evidence showed she could return to work as a caregiver at a sedentary to light level.