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, employed as a claims processing clerk, experienced a repetitive use injury and filed a notice of injury. Despite receiving medical care and continuing work, the Worker was placed on a performance improvement plan due to work performance issues and was later terminated for continued deficiencies in work performance. Over a year after termination, the Worker filed a workers’ compensation complaint, seeking TTD benefits until reaching MMI, PPD benefits including modifiers after reaching MMI, and medical benefits, based on a doctor’s order that prevented her from performing her usual job duties due to the injury (paras 6-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the term “misconduct” in Sections 52-1-25.1(D)(3) and 52-1-26(D)(4) should be construed in favor of workers to mean “willful misconduct,” similar to its use in the unemployment compensation context. Contended that substantial evidence does not support the WCJ’s determination of termination for misconduct and that the WCJ erred by not deeming as admitted Employer’s untimely responses to Worker’s requests for admission (paras 10, 36-38).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellee: Argued that “misconduct” should be given its plain, ordinary meaning of “improper behavior” and that the Worker’s termination for performance issues falls within this definition. Opposed the Worker’s interpretation of “misconduct” and defended the WCJ’s findings and conclusions (paras 12-14, 18-19, 22-24).

Legal Issues

• Whether the term “misconduct” in Sections 52-1-25.1(D)(3) and 52-1-26(D)(4) should be given its plain, ordinary meaning or construed as “willful misconduct” in favor of workers, similar to its use in the unemployment compensation context (para 10).
• Whether substantial evidence supports the WCJ’s determination that the Worker was terminated for misconduct (para 36).
• Whether the WCJ erred by not deeming as admitted Employer’s untimely responses to Worker’s requests for admission (para 38).

Disposition

• The Court held that “misconduct,” as used in Sections 52-1-25.1(D)(3) and 52-1-26(D)(4), is to be given its plain, ordinary meaning of “improper behavior.” The Court rejected the Worker’s arguments that the WCJ erred in determining Worker was terminated for misconduct and by not deeming as admitted Employer’s late responses to Worker’s requests for admission. The Court affirmed the WCJ’s decision (paras 35, 39).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge ATTREP with Judges HENDERSON and WRAY concurring, reasoned that the plain, ordinary meaning of “misconduct” is “improper behavior” and found no compelling reason to depart from this definition. The Court distinguished the workers’ compensation context from the unemployment compensation context, noting the Legislature’s directive not to construe the Workers’ Compensation Act liberally in favor of either party. The Court also considered policy arguments, legislative history, and the statutory scheme, ultimately finding that the Legislature intended “misconduct” to mean “improper behavior” without requiring it to be “willful.” The Court concluded that the plain meaning of “misconduct” is consistent with the purpose of the Act and rejected the Worker’s remaining arguments based on this interpretation (paras 11-34).