What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Petition to terminate total disability benefits for claimant who had light-duty restrictions that could not be accommodated denied; claimant had reasonable expectation of returning to pre-injury job with same employer when his condition improved.
Bowman v. Allen Harim Foods, IAB No. 1541176 (Dec. 18, 2024)
February 1, 2025
On November 4, 2023, the claimant injured his left knee in a compensable work accident that required surgery to his patella. He had to switch doctors after his first treating surgeon passed away.
On March 26, 2024, the claimant was released to return to light-duty work, but with no use of the stairs. He briefly returned to work, but the employer was not able to accommodate those restrictions because his job required using steps connecting multiple levels of the plant.
The claimant was issued a note on June 17, 2024, that removed the stairs restriction. He briefly returned to a modified-duty position with those restrictions, but a few days later, he was taken back out of work with a more restrictive, light-duty note.
On August 5, 2024, the employer filed a petition to terminate total disability benefits on the basis that the claimant was capable of returning to work and there were jobs within his restrictions available.
The parties stipulated that the claimant continued with light-duty restrictions and that jobs identified within a labor market survey were available and within those restrictions. Therefore, the sole issue to determine entitlement to temporary total disability benefits was whether the claimant qualified as a “Hoey displaced worker.” The legal standard was whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of returning to work for the employer.
The Industrial Accident Board concluded he did and confirmed the claimant was informed he would not be able to return to work without a lifting of his restrictions. However, he was also told to keep the employer updated about his medical appointments and any changes in restrictions. He was never separated from employment or told to look for employment elsewhere.
The claimant’s testimony, that he expected to improve with physical therapy and return to his pre-injury job, was found to be credible by the Board. The termination petition was denied.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 2, February 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
