Displaced Worker Doctrine applied. Employer’s termination petition denied, medical evidence shows claimant can do part-time light-duty work but has reasonable expectation of continued employment with employer who cannot accommodate claimant’s restrictions

This case involved application of the Displaced Worker Doctrine with an unfavorable result for the employer. The claimant had sustained a compensable low back injury on October 9, 2011, following which she underwent lumbar spine surgery and received total disability benefits. Later, the employer filed a review petition, seeking to terminate the claimant’s total disability benefits and put her on partial disability status. Based on the medical evidence presented by both parties, the Board concluded that the claimant was capable of part-time light-duty work as of August 28, 2013, based in part on reliance on a functional capacity evaluation that the claimant had undergone. The evidence also included a labor market survey, prepared by a vocational consultant on behalf of the employer, showing jobs in the local economy, which was submitted into evidence by stipulation of the parties. The claimant, however, contended that she was a displaced worker pursuant to the Hoey doctrine and was entitled to ongoing total disability since the employer could not accommodate her modified work restrictions.

The Board determined that the claimant did, in fact, have a reasonable expectation of continued employment with the employer as she had never been informed that she was being terminated. Further, the evidence showed that the claimant continued to receive employee benefits, including health insurance, and that she had been employed with the employer for many years. The claimant was also a union employee, which required a particular procedure to be followed in order to terminate such a claimant’s employment, and that procedure had not even been initiated in this case. Based on this evidence, the Board concluded that, while the claimant was clearly capable of performing modified work, she nevertheless remained entitled to total disability benefits since she had a reasonable expectation of continued employment with the employer and they were not able to accommodate her modified work restrictions.

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2014