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, an eligibility interviewer for the Employer, suffered a compensable injury in 2007. Despite the injury, the Worker continued her role until her retirement in 2011. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the Worker reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) with a 13% impairment rating and ordered the Employer to pay the Worker permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits for a 500-week period starting July 31, 2011, with a 7% formula modification (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, David L. Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge, December 23, 2015: The WCJ awarded Judy Hernandez benefits for her permanent partial disability (PPD).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Argued for entitlement to PPD benefits despite retirement and challenged the WCJ’s finding on the physical capacity modifier and the total PPD formula modifier being set at 7%.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Contended that the Worker’s retirement in July 2011 disentitled her to statutory formula modifications of her PPD award under Section 52-1-26(D) and disputed the awarding of formula modifiers.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker’s retirement in July 2011 disentitles her to statutory formula modifications of her PPD award under Section 52-1-26(D).
• Whether the WCJ erred in determining the Worker’s physical capacity modifier.
• Whether the WCJ should have imposed an 8% statutory modifier on Worker’s PPD compensation award instead of 7%.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the court remanded the case with instructions to impose an 8% statutory PPD modifier on the PPD award to the Worker, affirming the WCJ’s compensation order in all other respects (para 16).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  The appellate court applied a whole record standard of review, considering all evidence to determine substantial support for the judgment (para 3).
  It was determined that the Worker’s retirement does not preclude an award of formula modifiers under Section 52-1-26(D), citing precedent that retirement does not automatically bar an award of modifier-based PPD benefits if the decision to retire was reasonable (paras 5-9).
  The court rejected the Employer’s argument that the case of Cordova, which supported the Worker’s position, was abrogated by Gonzalez, affirming that a worker may not unreasonably reject an offer of employment to continue receiving modifier-based PPD benefits (para 10).
  Regarding the Worker’s physical capacity modifier, the court found no error in the WCJ’s determination, noting the WCJ’s discretion to accept or reject the Independent Medical Examiner’s conclusions based on the Worker’s continued employment post-accident (paras 11-14).
  The court agreed with the Worker that the WCJ erred in calculating the total statutory modifier as 7% instead of 8%, based on the correct application of the Worker’s age and education modifiers multiplied by the physical capacity multiplier (para 15).