Do temporary partial disability benefits exist in New Jersey? Judge of Compensation grants petitioner's motion for supplemental temporary disability benefits.
The petitioner suffered a compensable left knee injury on January 29, 2011, while an employee of the respondent. Following two surgical procedures, the authorized treating physician released the petitioner to return to light-duty work in January of 2012, beginning at four hours per day and gradually progressing to eight hours per day. The respondent was able to accommodate the petitioner's restrictions and extended a light-duty assignment offer to the petitioner, who accepted the offer and returned to work.
At the time of injury, the petitioner was earning an average weekly wage of $976.15, entitling him to a temporary disability rate of $683.31. Due to the petitioner's reduced hours, his net pay totaled $329.43 per week during his light-duty assignment. Accordingly, he requested that the respondent remit the difference, $353.88 per week, to compensate for the difference between his light-duty earnings and his temporary disability rate. The respondent refused, claiming that there was no statutory authority requiring that it make up the difference between the amount the petitioner earned and his temporary disability rate. The petitioner filed a Motion for Medical & Temporary Disability Benefits seeking supplemental temporary disability benefits.
At oral argument, the petitioner contended that N.J.S.A. 34:15-12, which, in part, governs the payment of temporary disability benefits, is intended to provide an injured worker with an amount which the legislature has determined to be sufficient for his living expenses while temporarily disabled. To allow the respondent to pay less than the petitioner's temporary disability rate while working light duty, the petitioner claimed, would result in his financial hardship. The respondent argued that nowhere in the workers' compensation statute does it provide for payment of supplemental temporary disability benefits. As the legislature took no steps to alleviate the financial hardship inherent in the petitioner's situation, the court had no authority to compel the respondent to pay supplemental temporary disability benefits.
In granting the petitioner's motion, the Judge of Compensation reasoned that allowing the respondent to effectively reduce the petitioner's temporary disability benefits during his light-duty assignment would provide the respondent with an unintended financial benefit and act as a disincentive to transitioning the petitioner back to his regular job duties. As the Judge of Compensation stated:
It seems rather obvious to this court that if respondent is responsible for the payment of temporary disability benefits, and, in this case, the amount to which petitioner is entitled is $683.31 per week, to allow respondent to provide minimum light duty and only pay the petitioner an amount less than the $683.31 to which he is entitled, defeats the purpose of both the temporary disability and the light duty provisions of the workers' compensation statute.
The Judge of Compensation concluded that the "logical interpretation" of N.J.S.A. 34:15-12 would require that the respondent remit the difference between the amount earned by the petitioner during his light-duty assignment and the amount to which he was entitled by statute.
Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013