Petitioner requested layoff after second motor vehicle accident and did not work despite modified duty availability.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact is central to the dispute over entitlement to temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 2On October 8, 2014, Petitioner the applicant sustained a specific industrial injury
to his neck, left shoulder and arm from a traffic collision. Petitioner was able to
continue full-duty work, but reportedly was involved in a second motor vehicle
accident on or about November 20, 2014. Petitioner reportedly acknowledged being
able to continue working but demanded to be laid off. Defendant-Employer agreed
to lay him off as requested. Defendant's Exhibit D: Statement of Jennifer Galagan
11/20/12014; Defendant's Exhibit E: Statement of Todd Sumrall 11/20/2014;
Defendant's Exhibit C: Employee Separation Report 11/21/2024.
Employer testimony indicates modified work was available and would have continued if petitioner had not quit.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supports the conclusion that temporary disability may not be due if modified work was offered and refused.
From the decision · page 3Jennifer Galagan testified that she was the HR Director for the employer prior
November 20, 2014. He was working subject to restrictions including a ten pound
lifting limit and prohibition on more than occasional neck motions. Petitioner had
been able to work with these restrictions and they would have been provided had
he continued working. After the second auto accident, however, Petitioner said that
he was "just done." Joint Exhibit 08: Summary of Evidence 1/26/2021 p. 5 line 45
to p. 6 line 42.
The evidence, including applicant's supervisor's testimony, may not be sufficient to support the conclusion that modified work was actually offered.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This uncertainty led the Appeals Board to grant reconsideration for further review.
From the decision · page 7Where the cause of an injured workers' wage loss flows from the industrial injury,
temporary partial disability is due. Where the cause of the wage loss is from some other
ascertainable cause, only that portion of wage loss attributable to the injury is payable. Here,
defendant argues that applicant requested to be laid off, and thus, no temporary disability is due
during the periods that modified duty was available. Applicant contends that defendant never
actually offered modified duty within any ascribed work restrictions and thus, defendant failed to
prove that modified duty was ever available. The WCJ concludes that the employer provided
modified work within the restrictions and would have continued to provide it if applicant had not
quit. However, based on our limited review of the record, the evidence, including applicant's
supervisor's testimony, may not be sufficient to support the conclusion that modified work was
actually offered.