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 school bus driver for Los Lunas Public Schools, injured her back and shoulder on October 8, 2007. Despite undergoing treatment, disputes arose regarding her average weekly wage (AWW), adherence to a home exercise program, refusal of job offers, and her residual physical capacity. The Worker's compensation case led to a trial on the merits, resulting in two compensation orders that both parties appealed.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Contended that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in calculating her AWW, reducing her impairment rating due to not following a home exercise program, denying her temporary total disability (TTD) and permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits due to job offer refusals, and classifying her residual physical capacity as light duty.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees/Cross-Appellants: Argued that the WCJ erred by only reducing the Worker's impairment rating by one percent for her injurious practice and by ordering the Employer to pay fifty percent of the Worker's attorney fees, asserting that their offer of compensation was valid and timely.

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ erred in including wages from the 2006-2007 school year in determining the Worker’s AWW.
• Whether the WCJ correctly found that the Worker persisted in an injurious practice by not following a home exercise program and reduced her impairment rating by one percent.
• Whether the WCJ erred in denying the Worker’s TTD benefits and PPD modifier benefits due to her rejection of job offers.
• Whether the WCJ erred in classifying the Worker’s residual physical capacity as light duty.
• Whether the WCJ erred in reducing the Worker’s impairment rating by only one percent for her injurious practice.
• Whether the WCJ erred in ordering the Employer to pay fifty percent of the Worker’s attorney fees.

Disposition

• The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the compensation orders entered by the WCJ.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Cynthia A. Fry, Judge, concurring): The court found that the WCJ's calculation of the Worker's AWW under Section 52-1-20(B) was appropriate, given the wages paid to the Worker during the twenty-six weeks immediately preceding her injury. The court disagreed with the WCJ's finding that the Worker persisted in an injurious practice by not following a home exercise program, noting the lack of evidence that she was ever prescribed a specific program by her healthcare professionals. The court also reversed the denial of TTD benefits and the modifier portion of PPD benefits, concluding that the Worker was unable to perform the job offers due to her medical condition, contrary to the WCJ's findings. The court found no error in the WCJ's determination of the Worker's residual physical capacity as light duty. Lastly, the court reversed the WCJ's order requiring the Employer to pay fifty percent of the Worker's attorney fees, finding the Employer's offer of compensation was timely under Section 52-1-54(F).