 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anderson v. Longmont Toyota12/6/2004
ning of the statute, if clear. Davison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 84 P.3d 1023, 1029 (Colo. 2004); see also Vigil v. Franklin, No. 03SC479, slip op. at 11-12 (Colo. Nov. 30, 2004). If the statutory provision is unclear, we look to a variety of sources of legislative intent, including the object the legislature sought to obtain by the enactment, the circumstances under which it was adopted, and the consequences of a particular construction. § 2-4-203(1), C.R.S. (2004); Bymer, 955 P.2d at 554.
In construing provisions of the Act, we read the statute as a whole and, if possible, construe its terms harmoniously, reconciling conflicts where necessary. Esser, 30 P.3d at 195. If the wording of the statutory provision is ambiguous, we examine the impacts of alternative constructions and presume that the General Assembly intended a just and reasonable result. Bymer, 955 P.2d at 554. We consider the Act's legislative policy declaration, Mountain City Meat Co. v. Oqueda, 919 P.2d 246, 252 (Colo. 1996), and the legislative history accompanying the provision's enactment, Bymer, 955 P.2d at 554.
As a general principle, workers' compensation benefits are designed to prevent destitution of an injured worker. Arthur Larson, 1 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 1.02 (2004). Colorado's Act is based on a mutual renunciation of common law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike; the General Assembly intends the "quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to injured workers at a reasonable cost to employers, without the necessity of any litigation. . . ." § 8-40-102(1), C.R.S. (2004).
An essential component of the injured employee compensation design, TTD benefits exist to help offset lost wages when the employee cannot work due to the injury . § 8-42-105, C.R.S. (2004). An employee is eligible for TTD benefits if: (1) the injury or occupational disease causes disability; (2) the injured employee leaves work as a result of the injury; and (3) the temporary disability is total and lasts more than three regular working days'. §§ 8-42-103(1)(a),(b), 8-42-105(1), C.R.S. (2004); PDM Molding, Inc. v. Stanberg, 898 P.2d 542, 546 (Colo. 1995).
The injured employee receives TTD benefits until one of the following events occurs: 1) claimant reaches maximum medical improvement; 2) claimant returns to regular or modified employment; 3) claimant is medically released to regular employment; or 4) claimant is medically released to modified employment and fails to begin such employment. § 8-42-105(3)(a)-(d), C.R.S. (2004). Thus, a goal of the TTD provisions is to return employees to work through the avenue of modified employment if available-subject to whatever medical restrictions are appropriate.
The General Assembly enacted section 8-42-105(4) to address situations where an injured worker returns to modified employment, then leaves that employment voluntarily or is terminated for cause and, as a result, suffers wage loss. The General Assembly adopted this provision in 1999.
Agreeing with the ICAO and the court of appeals that this provision is unclear and ambiguous, we proceed with our analysis.
B. Section 8-42-105(4)
The ICAO focused on the phrase "resulting wage loss" in section 8-42-105(4): " n cases where it is determined that a temporarily disabled employee is responsible for termination of employment, the resulting wage loss shall not be attributable to the on-the-job injury." Anderson v. Longmont Toyota, Inc., W.C. 4-465-839 (ICAO, Feb. 13, 2001). Pointing out the phrase's semantic connection between the employee's termination and loss of wages caused thereby, it reasoned that the General Assembly di
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|