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 suffered an injury to his left foot, which initially had a thirty-four percent loss of use impairment rating. After the injury worsened, leading to a fifty percent loss of use, the Worker became disabled. The Employer had previously compensated the Worker for the initial injury with a lump sum payment. The worsening of the injury and subsequent reassessment of its severity led to a dispute over the amount of additional compensation due to the Worker.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) improperly determined the amount of credit the Employer should receive for previous payments made for loss of use benefits.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge improperly determined the amount of credit to which the Employer is entitled for its previous payments for loss of use benefits.

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision to give the Employer a credit for benefits previously paid was affirmed.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, with CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring, held that the Workers’ Compensation Judge properly credited the Employer for the lump sum payment previously made to the Worker. The Worker argued that the credit given to the Employer was excessive, suggesting that the credit should only cover the weekly benefits the Employer would have been liable for during a specific thirty-two-week period at the original impairment rating. However, the Court found that the WCJ applied an appropriate method to avoid duplication of benefits by restarting the 115-week benefit period from the date the Worker reached maximum medical improvement for the second time, based on the fifty percent loss of use impairment rating, and then crediting the Employer for the entire lump sum payment previously made. This approach was deemed consistent with the need to prevent duplication of benefits and was supported by relevant case law and statutory provisions.