 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gibbons v. Boeing Co.7/30/2001
John Gibbons appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his workers' compensation claim. Because he was voluntarily retired, he was ineligible for time-loss compensation. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
John Gibbons was a carpenter for The Boeing Company. On September 24, 1988, Gibbons sustained an injury to his back in the course of his employment, and was awarded time-loss compensation. Medically cleared to return to work, Gibbons returned to Boeing on July 3, 1993. He worked entering data on a computer, because he was unable to do even modified work in his old position. In addition to his back injury, he had shoulder bursitis and diabetes. Believing he was physically unable to work full time, Gibbons took a leave of absence on August 1, 1993. He applied for disability retirement, but instead received regular retirement status. He retired from Boeing on September 1, 1993, at age 62, and has neither sought nor engaged in any gainful employment since.
One month later, the Department of Labor and Industries ( the Department) issued an order deeming Gibbons' medical condition stable, granting an award of $9,000 for permanent partial disability, and closing the claim with time-loss compensation through July 2, 1993. Gibbons protested, but on April 25, 1994, the Department affirmed the October 12 closing order. Gibbons filed no further appeal.
In April 1995, Gibbons' claim was reopened for additional treatment. He sought time-loss compensation for the period after reopening. The Department found that Gibbons had voluntarily retired, was no longer attached to the workforce, and was therefore not entitled to time-loss compensation benefits under RCW 51.32.090(8).
The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (the Board) affirmed. Gibbons appealed to superior court, which granted Boeing's motion for summary judgment. Gibbons appeals.
DISCUSSION
We review summary judgment orders de novo. In worker compensation cases, we presume the Board's findings and decision are correct; the burden is on the challenging party to overcome the presumption. We will uphold the Board's factual determinations if supported by substantial evidence. The purpose of the Industrial Insurance Act is to reduce 'to a minimum the suffering and economic loss arising from injuries.' In construing provisions of the Act, courts are guided by the principle that it is remedial in nature and therefore is liberally construed to achieve its purpose of providing compensation to all covered employees injured in their employment, with doubts resolved in favor of the worker.
Voluntary Retirement
Time-loss compensation is temporary compensation an industrially injured worker is entitled to receive while totally unable to perform work for the employer before the disability condition has been fixed or determined. Its purpose is to provide temporary financial support until the injured worker is able to return to work. An injured worker is entitled to time-loss compensation when the worker is classified as temporarily totally disabled, a classification which contemplates the claimant will reach an eventual complete recovery or a static impaired condition.
A worker who is voluntarily retired is not eligible for time-loss compensation. This is because one who is not actively engaged in the workforce due to retirement lacks the requisite adverse economic impact, i.e. lost wages or income, to warrant the award of time-loss benefits. A worker who voluntarily leaves the active labor force and opts to decline further employment activity despite the presence of sufficient physical capacities can suffer no loss of wages, because, by definit
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|