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

• In September 2016, the Worker suffered injuries to his left shoulder, left elbow, and low back due to a trip and fall at work. He returned to work the following week and reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) about a year later. After reaching MMI, the Worker filed for basic permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, which the Employer paid. The Worker remained employed until July 2018, when he retired based on a pulmonary health condition developed while working for a previous employer, following his doctor's advice. The Worker then sought statutory modifiers to increase his PPD benefits, which was the subject of this appeal (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued for entitlement to statutory modifiers under Section 52-1-26(C) to increase the base award of PPD benefits, contending that his retirement was reasonable and should not preclude him from receiving the statutory modifiers (paras 10-11, 13-14).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: The specific arguments of the Employer/Insurer-Appellees are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that they opposed the Worker's claim for statutory modifiers based on the WCJ's ruling and the legal standards applied (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker is entitled to statutory modifiers under Section 52-1-26(C) for his PPD benefits after retiring for reasons unrelated to his work injury (paras 4, 10).

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision to deny the Worker statutory modifiers was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Jennifer L. Attrep with concurrence from Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and Judge Jane B. Yohalem, reasoned that the Worker did not meet his burden to show the WCJ erred in denying statutory modifiers. The Court reviewed the relevant law on PPD benefits and statutory modifiers, emphasizing that statutory modifiers are not automatically granted upon a worker's reasonable decision to leave employment. The Court distinguished this case from Cordova, noting that the Worker voluntarily removed himself from the workforce for reasons unrelated to his work injury, which does not align with the legislative intent of encouraging employment and minimizing dependence on compensation awards. The Court found no error in the WCJ's application of legal standards or in the denial of statutory modifiers based on the Worker's circumstances (paras 5-16).