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, employed as a temporary food service utility worker at a conference center, sustained an injury during a work accident on August 26, 1993. The Worker’s employment was seasonal and part-time, with no guaranteed hours, and her hours were limited by the Employer’s policy restricting temporary employees to a maximum of 955 hours annually. The Worker was found to be permanently partially disabled by 11% following the accident (paras 3-4, 7).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge issued a compensation order addressing the Worker’s claims, including the calculation of her average weekly wage, her ability to return to work, and the Employer’s liability for certain medical expenses.
Parties' Submissions
- Worker-Appellant: Argued that the Workers' Compensation Judge erred in calculating her average weekly wage, finding her capable of medium work, granting credits to the Employer for benefits paid, denying payment for a hospital bill, denying her motion to compel discovery, and concluding that her claim was barred (para 1).
- Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Defended the Workers' Compensation Judge’s findings, asserting that the average weekly wage was correctly calculated under the statute, the Worker was capable of medium work, and the credits and denial of the hospital bill were appropriate. They also opposed the motion to compel discovery (paras 1, 6-8, 27-29).
Legal Issues
- Was the calculation of the Worker’s average weekly wage correct under the applicable statutory provisions?
- Was the finding that the Worker could return to medium work supported by evidence?
- Were the Respondents entitled to credits for benefits paid after offers of suitable employment?
- Were the Respondents required to pay the Worker’s hospital bill?
- Did the Workers' Compensation Judge err in denying the Worker’s motion to compel discovery?
- Was the conclusion that the Worker’s claim was barred a clerical error?
Disposition
- The determination of the Worker’s average weekly wage was partially reversed, requiring recalculation of the hourly rate.
- The finding that the Worker could return to medium work was affirmed.
- The granting of credits for benefits paid was affirmed.
- The denial of payment for the hospital bill was affirmed.
- The denial of the motion to compel discovery was affirmed.
- The conclusion that the Worker’s claim was barred was identified as a clerical error and remanded for correction (paras 2, 31-32).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Bosson and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
Average Weekly Wage: The Judge determined that the Worker’s average weekly wage should be calculated under Subsection C of the statute due to the seasonal and temporary nature of her employment. However, the inclusion of lower hourly rates from earlier periods was deemed unfair, as the Worker consistently earned $6.13 per hour in the 26 weeks preceding the injury. The hourly rate must be recalculated accordingly (paras 6-16).
Ability to Return to Medium Work: Substantial evidence, including medical testimony, surveillance footage, and inconsistencies in the Worker’s reported limitations, supported the finding that she could return to medium work before reaching maximum medical improvement (paras 17-20).
Credits for Benefits Paid: The evidence showed that the Worker was offered suitable employment but failed to perform the work. Thus, the Respondents were entitled to credits for benefits paid after the offers (paras 21-24).
Hospital Bill: The Worker failed to adequately argue or provide evidence that the hospital bill was an emergency expense or otherwise compensable under the statute. The denial of payment was upheld (paras 25-26).
Motion to Compel Discovery: The Worker’s attempt to challenge the Employer’s policy on limiting hours as discriminatory was deemed outside the scope of the workers' compensation forum. The denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion (paras 27-29).
Clerical Error: The conclusion that the Worker’s claim was barred was identified as a typographical error and remanded for correction (para 30).