Workers’ comp denied because he looked for too many new jobs
August 20, 2012 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, new court decision, Special Report, Workers' comp
PDF States require workers’ comp applicants to seek appropriate employment before they’re awarded wage-loss benefits. In this case, a commission ruled a worker sought too many jobs and therefore wasn’t eligible for comp benefits. The employee appealed.
Michigan requires workers’ comp applicants to satisfy four steps before qualifying for wage replacement benefits. The injured worker must:
- disclose his work qualifications, including education, skills, experience and training
- prove what jobs he is qualified and trained to perform within the same salary range as his maximum earning capacity at the time of his injury
- show his work-related injury prevents him from performing some or all of the jobs identified, and
- show he can’t obtain any of the jobs if he is capable of performing.
In this case, Joe Holmes was a high school graduate. He had worked mostly as a general laborer before being injured, including construction, maintenance, janitorial and assembly line work.
The most he ever earned was $11.50 per hour. At his last job before his injury, he earned $9.50 per hour.
He had no special qualifications or training to speak of.
To satisfy the four steps under the state’s workers’ comp law, Holmes tried to find a new job by registering at Michigan Works and putting his resume online. He reported to Michigan Works regularly to search for new jobs and sent out resumes for all listed jobs. He also applied directly for other jobs. Some of the jobs he applied for: a truck rental agency, pet control and video stores.
Holmes never saw jobs posted which paid what he made at the time of his injury, let alone the maximum wage he once earned.
When he applied for workers’ comp wage replacement, a magistrate granted the request.
Was he too ‘unfocused’?
On review, the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) overturned the magistrate’s ruling. The WCAC said Holmes failed to establish the appropriate range of jobs required by step 2.
Specifically, the WCAC said Holmes’ job search was “unfocused,” or, in other words, too broad. It wasn’t limited to jobs for which he could likely be hired.
The WCAC denied the request for wage replacement. In effect, it said Holmes’ unfocused job search had caused him to look for too many jobs.
Holmes took his case to a state appeals court.
The court noted that Michigan case law called for denial of workers’ comp wage replacement benefits for applicants whose job searches are too restricted.
The court said if Holmes’ job search had been too narrow, it would have been proper to deny his application for wage replacement benefits.
But that wasn’t the case. The court said Holmes shouldn’t be punished for applying for what might be considered too broad a range of jobs.
The appeals court sent the case back to the WCAC with an order to award Holmes wage-loss benefits.
What do you think about the WCAC’s and the appeal court’s opinions? Let us know in the comments below.
(Holmes v. ET4 Inc., State of MI Court of Appeals, No. 303954, 8/2/12)
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Loading ...
August 20th, 2012 at 8:52 am
I think the appeals court got it right. It doesn’t make sense for the WCAC to deny him benefits for applying for to many jobs. I know it states that the jobs were not in his pay range but it isn’t his fault there wasn’t any openings for that pay range at that time.
August 21st, 2012 at 8:55 am
Workers compensation is a joke I would not wish on my worst enemy. It started as a good idea and has blossomed into a totaly inept system. Insurance companies run you all over the country without reguard for your pain, injuries all to get you to give up and take the minimum amount for your injury unless you are an illegal. In that case they give you a multimillion dollar settelment and deport you back to your home country to live like a king for the rest of your life. Having to fight the system, insurance compaines and hire an attorney while lacking funds for your basic needs while you cannot work will tax even the hardiest person. On top of that you have to pay 25% minimum of what you receive to your attorney after everything is settled. Why because you had to hire him to get what you by law are suppose to receive from the insurance company to start with. I vote we do away with workers compensation and allow employees to take employeers to court instead. Maybe they would take better care of their employees instead of cutting corners and saving a buck to start with. I was almost killed in an oil field accident and received a scheduled benifet of $30,000 in compensation before attorneys fees. in the end i was paid 22,500 for 6 crushed vertrebre, separated shoulder and was not able to return to my former job because of a 25% disability. This settlement was suppose to pay for pain and suffering and my retraining. It barley covered the bills for my unemployment for two years while waiting for a settlement. Now that is a fare system!!!!!!
August 21st, 2012 at 8:57 am
Excuse the spelling as i was upset and in a hurry.
August 21st, 2012 at 9:34 am
Appeals Court definitely got this one right. I kept thinking while I read this article how really petty the WCAC’s initial decision was. That requirement #2 should be rewritten.
August 21st, 2012 at 10:06 am
I agree with the appeals court as well. When you loose a job and you need to pay your bills, it does not matter how you loose it, you apply for jobs anywhere and everywhere that may be hiring. workers comp does not meet the needs of most folks for long enough to matter. this man did the right thing by trying to get any job anywhere.
August 21st, 2012 at 10:11 am
Well said Paduke. To bad the Editors cannot/will not post your comment on all the article sights. Or will they? I just feel this article may not have to much interest to have a big draw of responses as others. For example last weeks article about the employee tasting food and choking got alot of responses or the one about the overweight person trying to get a conductor job.
P.S. Paduke, your excused.
August 21st, 2012 at 10:29 am
I’m not sure what the reference to “Editors cannot/will not post your comment” is all about. We have posted Paduke’s comments and post all comments unless they contain inappropriate language or they attack another commenter personally. In those situations, we will either edit the comment or not post it.
August 21st, 2012 at 10:45 am
I’m sorry Fred, I thought my post was clear enough to understand. I just think Padukes comment should not only be posted under this article but others as well without having Paduke go to all the other articles to post what he wrote in response to this article. That’s all I meant. I thought that you could simply arrange for that to happen so that more people could view his post instead of just the ones responding to this article. Again I apologize for not being more clear.
August 21st, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Paduke…
Question: What about if you received that injury because you weren’t following the in place safety procedures? Should the employer be taken to court for that? No
Is the system perfect? No.
Do we need a good reason to sue? No. Especially since we live in a society where suing has become the norm. Where else can you sue McDonalds for your kids being obese. Last time I checked, that was the parents responsibility.
Just like you are responsible (at some level) for your own safety. And no company wants a visit from OSHA. I also know that sometimes accidents happen even with the best laid plans and procedures.
Bottom line: I think the appeals courts got this one right.
August 22nd, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Good Lord, this poor young man is located in Michigan where unemployment is sky high, and he’s an injured unskilled worker. It seems to me that he was trying his best. Glad the appeals court ruled in his favor.
August 22nd, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Sounds like the judge was paid off by the company and its lawyers the first go round . y dont we make judges criminally responsible for obvious mistakes like this one? And put them in jail for their treasoness acts against the public. lmfao!
August 28th, 2012 at 6:58 am
The appeals court definately got it right. Paduke, I have a question for you. Were you not receiving medical care and wages from WC while you were injured for the 2 years and if not what was the reasoning given by your company or the insurance company.
I feel bad for you but is there more information that we are not getting?