Iowa Workers' Compensation: Released back to work, then laid off, what do I do?
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 335
I answer questions on another website and this question was recently posed and the economy being what it is, I thought a broader audience might appreciate the advice.
Question: If a person has a work comp injury with restrictions can they be laid off of work?
Answer: The answer is sometimes, yes and sometimes no. The answer all depends on how the doctor released the employee, with or without restrictions.
This question demonstrates why a release to return to work should be in writing and clearly set forth any restrictions on activity levels. Written releases of weight, time, push, pull, climbing, squatting, heights limits, to name a few are so very important and without the restrictions no one, especially the employer know how to treat the employee’s performance. If the employer is left with just listening to the employee about what they can and can not do, then doubts develop about the employee’s motivation and the employee is playing right into the prejudice that already exists in the workers’ compensation system.
A person who has been injured and off work (with a doctor’s excuse) due to a work related injury is entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits until one of three things happen. First, this period is known as the healing period and it runs up to the time when the employee returns to work, is released to return to work or reaches maximum medical improvement, which first occurs. Once released the employer must accept the employee. (I refer to these periods as RTW, RRTW or MMI.) Once released the employee must show up for work. Healing periods begin with the first date of disability and end with the release to return to work.
Restricted releases to return to work mean the employee is released for a trial of work. A trial of work is one in which the doctor wishes to see if the employee can be progressively reintroduced to their old job. If the employer accommodates those restrictions then all is well, but if not then the employee is back on healing period until the time when they either return to work or reach maximum medical improvement.
When during the healing period the employer has had to lay workers off due to a slow economy like the rest of the work force the employee must weather the slow down using unemployment benefits, not workers’ compensation benefits. But if the doctor’s excuse was for light duty (a release with restrictions) and employer is not able to accommodate those restrictions then the employee would be back on w.c. benefits as not yet healed. It’s simply a matter of the restrictions being in writing, the type of release being light duty and the employer not being able to accommodate the restricted work.
So if you have the right release and the employer doesn’t accommodate it then you should still receive workers’ compensation benefits under Iowa law.
If after being released to return to work you have a dispute with your employer about taking you back don’t get mad, hire a lawyer to assist you. Attitudes can be a good thing and bad all at the same time. I know you’re scared about being able to pay the bills and the kids need to eat, but keep your head about you and think. The Iowa Industrial Commission, otherwise known as Iowa Workforce Development (God I hate that name, what’s wrong with saying Industrial Commission?) is here to resolve disputes. There are times that even workers’ who act heroically are denied benefits.
August 26, 2008, Little Rock, Arkansas – McDonald’s Employee rescues customer who is being attacked by another customer, is shot and his employer argues he was not advancing the interests of the employer. The employee incurred over $300,000 in medical expenses. The employee is Nigel Haskett of Little Rock, Arkansas. He’s no longer working for McDonalds – Go figure!
Iowa employees need not be too concerned with this case on YouTube since there is another case tried by law firm in Cedar Rapids, Iowa where a convenience store employee (robbery) who was held up at gun point was allowed workers’ compensation benefits for a psychiatric fear disorder brought about as a result of the fear of having a gun pointed at them. So don’t despair, simply hire an attorney who knows the law.
The findings of fact are as follows:
Toby Brown is a 33-year-old high school graduate who took an additional one-year course at Hamilton Business College, obtaining a diploma in business administration. He served in the marines and also went to a six-month truck-driving course at Kirkwood College. He drove a truck coast-to-coast for approximately six months, but left this type of employment because of the need to drive in bad weather and the problems the large trucks had when there was a black ice problem. Toby described other employment he had up to the time he began working for the defendant employer on January 29, 1990, as a night assistant at Quik Trip. Quik Trip is a gas and grocery convenience store operating in several states. He worked primarily at the checkout register. He eventually was promoted to second assistant, a position he had held for over seven years at the time of hearing.
The events that led to this case are not seriously disputed. On January 18, 1994, while he was working the overnight shift, a shooting occurred in which a customer was shot in the upper thigh. Toby called the police and eventually had to go to the police station to identify pictures. Eventually he had to testify in a court proceeding on behalf of one of the people involved. The woman who was shot eventually sued Quik Trip. Toby acknowledged that the offense bothered him. There was blood everywhere – on the floor and merchandise - and he had to clean it up. He was worried about AIDS, but did wear gloves.
A second event occurred at a different Quik Trip store on January 24, 1994. While Toby was working with products, he was grabbed by the arm by a person and an object was stuck in his back. The robber requested Toby to turn over all the money. Toby thought it was a gun in his back, but never saw the object. The robber ordered Toby to get down before he blew his head off. Toby described how the robbery affected him. At the time of the robbery he was worried about his kids and about getting shot. He did not finish his shift.
The conclusions of law found the claim to be compensable.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury is a proximate cause of the disability on which the claim is based. A cause is proximate if it is a substantial factor in bringing about the result; it need not be the only cause. A preponderance of the evidence exists when the causal connection is probable rather than merely possible. Blacksmith v. All-American, Inc., 290 N.W.2d 348 (Iowa 1980); Holmes v. Bruce Motor Freight, Inc., 215 N.W.2d 296 (Iowa 1974).
The question of causal connection is essentially within the domain of expert testimony. The expert medical evidence must be considered with all other evidence introduced bearing on the causal connection between the injury and the disability. The weight to be given to any expert opinion is determined by the finder of fact and may be affected by the accuracy of the facts relied upon by the expert as well as other surrounding circumstances. The expert opinion may be accepted or rejected, in whole or in part. Sondag v. Ferris Hardware, 220 N.W.2d 903 (Iowa 1974); Anderson v. Oscar Mayer & Co., 217 N.W.2d 531 (Iowa 1974); Bodish v. Fischer, Inc., 257 Iowa 516, 133 N.W.2d 867 (1965).
Since »claimant has an impairment to the body as a whole, an industrial disability has been sustained. Industrial disability was defined in Diederich v. Tri-City Ry. Co., 219 Iowa 587, 258 N.W.2d 899 (1935) as follows: "It is therefore plain that the legislature intended the term 'disability' to mean 'industrial disability' or loss of earning capacity and not a mere 'functional disability' to be computed in the terms of percentages of the total physical and mental ability of a normal man."
The Order included payment of permanent partial disability benefits in the amount of 125 weeks.