This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An employee working as a lineman for the employer fell into an uncovered hole while performing his duties, resulting in a back injury. The parties agreed that the injury was work-related and that the employer had timely notice of the accident. The employee claimed he was left with a sedentary residual physical capacity, which limited his ability to work, and sought workers' compensation benefits (para 2).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The workers' compensation judge determined that the employee had a sedentary residual physical capacity and awarded him 65% permanent partial disability benefits (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Employer and Insurer): Argued that the workers' compensation judge erred in determining the employee's residual physical capacity as sedentary instead of light. They contended that the judge was bound by the testimony of the employee's healthcare provider, who opined that the employee could perform light work (paras 3, 6).
- Appellee (Employee): Asserted that the judge properly considered both the healthcare provider's testimony and the employee's own testimony in determining his residual physical capacity as sedentary. The employee also supported the award of attorney fees (paras 6-8).
Legal Issues
- Whether the workers' compensation judge erred in determining the employee's residual physical capacity as sedentary rather than light.
- Whether the workers' compensation judge improperly disregarded the healthcare provider's testimony in favor of the employee's testimony.
- Whether the award of attorney fees to the employee was appropriate.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the workers' compensation judge's determination that the employee had a sedentary residual physical capacity (para 10).
- The Court upheld the award of attorney fees to the employee (para 12).
Reasons
Per Apodaca CJ (Alarid and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the workers' compensation judge was not bound by the healthcare provider's opinion and could independently assess the evidence, including the employee's testimony, to determine residual physical capacity. The statutory language requiring a healthcare provider's input does not eliminate the judge's role as the fact-finder (paras 3-5).
The judge appropriately considered the healthcare provider's testimony, which indicated that the employee had a sedentary-to-light capacity, alongside the employee's testimony about his physical limitations. The judge concluded that the employee could not walk or stand to a significant degree, which supported a finding of sedentary capacity under the statutory definition (paras 6-9).
The Court rejected the employer's argument that the judge disregarded the healthcare provider's testimony, finding that the judge relied on the testimony in conjunction with other evidence. The determination of residual physical capacity was supported by substantial evidence (paras 8-10).
Regarding attorney fees, the Court found no basis to reduce the award, as the employer did not succeed on appeal. The employee was awarded $2,500 in attorney fees for the appeal, plus applicable gross receipts tax (para 12).