Fla. Court Rules on ‘Voluntary’ Resignations in Workers’ Comp Settlements
If a disabled worker can still perform essential job tasks, the employer cannot make a workers’ compensation settlement contingent on the worker’s “voluntary” retirement, according to the Middle District of Florida.
The Facts
After a trucking company driver hurt his left knee at a terminal, he underwent an MRI of the knee. Based on the results of that test, his doctor instructed him not to return to work. The doctor opined that the driver had a torn meniscus that would require arthroscopic surgery and subsequent physical therapy.
The company, via its workers’ compensation insurance adjuster, paid the examination and initial treatment bills but refused to authorize the driver’s knee surgery. Later, the doctor signed a form stating that the driver could return to regular duty. To accommodate the disabled worker, the company provided the driver with a truck with an automatic transmission rather than a manual transmission.
Nearly a year after the injury, although the physician still didn’t perform surgery that wasn’t approved by the insurance company, the doctor placed the driver on light duty work with a specific restriction of “no loading/unloading.”
About a month later, the driver told his doctor that he could not drive, even with an automatic transmission, due to “great pain” in his knee. The doctor instructed the driver not to return to work and signed a workers’ compensation form to that effect.
Through an attorney, the driver filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits with the State of Florida’s Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims.
About two months later, the doctor authorized the driver to return to work, with a light duty restriction. Following this authorization, the company offered to settle for $40,000, if the driver voluntarily resigned. The driver’s Tampa workers’ compensation lawyer approved the settlement.
Some six months later, the claims administrator expressed that the driver was eligible to receive temporary partial disability benefits. The driver filed another legal action, this time under the Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that he should not have been terminated from his position because he could perform the essential functions of his job while on a light-duty restriction from his doctor.
The Law and Its Application
Whether an ADA plaintiff can perform the essential functions of a position is a fact-specific inquiry and courts consider the employer’s description of the job and how the job is actually performed in practice. So, according to the court, a jury must decide whether the driver could perform the job’s essential functions while restricted to light-duty assignments.
The driver, who was a “bulk tank professional,” presented evidence that the job did not require lifting boxes to unload a trailer. However, the company presented a job description saying that unloading and loading freight were required.
In response, the driver’s Tampa workers’ compensation lawyer pointed out that loading and unloading was conducted via hydraulic pump, and the company did not present evidence that these functions could not be performed by a bulk tank professional while on a light-duty restriction.
Based on the conflicting evidence presented, the court denied the company’s motion on the driver’s failure to accommodate an ADA disability claim.
The primary takeaway is clear. Whether a person is “qualified” under the ADA depends on whether s/he, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position he holds or desires.
Count on a Dedicated Hillsborough County Lawyer
Injury victims are entitled to important financial benefits. For a confidential consultation with an experienced workers’ compensation lawyer in Tampa, contact Kobal Law. The sooner you reach out to us, the sooner we start working for you.
Source:
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2021cv02980/397188/176/
