This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A correctional officer was injured while escorting a beaten inmate during a planned "welcoming party" for troublesome inmates at a detention center. The officer was struck in the neck and shoulder by a fellow officer who was attempting to strike the inmate. Following the incident, the officer was pressured to alter his testimony during an internal investigation but testified truthfully. He was subsequently terminated without good cause and later obtained new employment. The dispute arose over whether the employer could offset workers' compensation benefits with wages earned from the new job (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) allowed the employer to offset workers' compensation benefits with wages earned by the worker from subsequent employment (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker-Appellant: Argued that the employer was not entitled to an offset for wages earned from a subsequent employer under the applicable workers' compensation statute. Also contended that his pre-injury job should be classified as "heavy" work rather than "medium" work (paras 3, 6, 22).
- Employer-Appellee: Asserted that the statute allowed an offset for wages earned from any employer and that the worker's pre-injury job was properly classified as "medium" work (paras 6, 22).
Legal Issues
- Was the employer entitled to an offset for wages earned by the worker from a subsequent employer under Section 52-1-47.1?
- Was the worker's pre-injury job properly classified as "medium" work under the applicable statutory definitions?
Disposition
- The employer was not entitled to an offset for wages earned from a subsequent employer (para 18).
- The classification of the worker's pre-injury job as "medium" work was affirmed (para 26).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Alarid and Robinson JJ. concurring):
Offset for Wages from Subsequent Employer: The court interpreted Section 52-1-47.1 to allow offsets only for wages and benefits provided or financed by the at-injury employer. The statute's language and legislative history indicated that it was intended to prevent workers from receiving more in total payments from the at-injury employer than they would have earned by continuing to work. The court rejected the employer's broader interpretation, which would have included wages from subsequent employers, as unsupported by the statutory language and inconsistent with legislative intent (paras 6-18).
Classification of Pre-Injury Job: The WCJ's finding that the worker's pre-injury job required "medium" physical capacity was supported by substantial evidence, including the job description's lifting requirements. The court emphasized that the focus should be on the usual and customary duties of the job, not on rare or exceptional circumstances. The evidence showed that the majority of the lifting involved weights consistent with "medium" work (paras 22-26).
Attorney Fees: The court awarded attorney fees to the worker for the appeal, subject to the statutory cap of $16,500, and remanded the case to the WCJ to determine the appropriate amount (para 27).