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-Appellant was limited to impairment benefits due to his voluntary removal from the workforce after retiring. He had been released to modified duty following an injury and was offered modified duty work at his pre-injury wage. However, he returned to work for only three days and did not return after being released to modified duty with the ability to lift 20 pounds. The Worker-Appellant argued that he had not permanently removed himself from the labor market and that he was not offered a permanent job after being released to return to work.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that it was incorrect to assume he had permanently removed himself from the labor market and contended that there was a preponderance of evidence showing his intention to continue working. He also argued that without a bona fide job offer, denying modifiers after reaching Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) was erroneous.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellee: Offered modified duty work to the Worker at his pre-injury wage and affirmed willingness to have the Worker return to work at modified duty. They presented evidence, including Employer’s Exhibit K, which discussed the offer made to the Worker of modified duty and his refusal to return to work.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker voluntarily removed himself from the workforce by retiring.
• Whether the Worker was offered a permanent job after being released to return to work.
• Whether the Worker could refuse an offer of work based on his own subjective view of his ability to perform the offered work.

Disposition

• The decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) was affirmed, limiting the Worker to impairment benefits due to his voluntary removal from the workforce.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the Worker voluntarily removed himself from the workforce by retiring, as he presented no evidence of plans to move on to another job post-retirement. The Worker's argument that he was not offered a permanent job post-injury was also dismissed, as the Employer had offered modified duty work at his pre-injury wage, which the Worker only briefly returned to. The Court noted that the Worker never inquired about the job offer or whether work at modified duty was still an option for him after his brief return. Furthermore, the Court rejected the Worker's claim that a job offer must be a "permanent" job offer and found no support for the Worker's refusal of work based on his subjective view of his ability to perform the offered work, citing Sanchez v. Zanio’s Foods, Inc. as authority.