Full Service Law Firm in Mt. Laurel Township, NJ | Capehart Scatchard

temporary disability benefits

There are many issues that arise regarding the payment of temporary disability benefits under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act. This blog will cover some of the basic issues and some of the complex issues.

Q. When is an employee eligible for temporary disability benefits?

The employee must have lost more than seven days of time due to a work injury or occupational disease (not necessarily consecutive days) in order to receive payment of temporary disability benefits. Example: employee is injured on October 1st at work, does not complete that day of work, and the authorized treating doctor keeps the employee out until October 9th. This is more than seven days because N.J.S.A. 34:15-38 provides that you count as day one the first day that the employee cannot complete work. That would be October 1st. When a worker is out for any period of time, weekends and holidays that fall within that period of time are counted as lost days.

Q. What is the rate of payment in New Jersey?

The rate is 70% of wages subject to a maximum and a minimum rate. For 2024 injuries the maximum is $1,131 per week and the minimum is $302 per week. Temporary disability payments are not taxable.

Q. What if the employee works for a board of education?

School board employees have a unique provision that no other employees have in New Jersey. The Education Law under 18A:30-2.1 provides that full salary must be paid to school board employees who are injured under workers’ compensation for one year from the first date of lost time. The IRS takes the position that the entire full salary payment is not taxable when a school board employee is out of work due to a workers’ compensation injury.

Q. What if the employee works for a municipality, county or the State? 

Most public entities have collective bargaining agreements that provide for full salary payments in lieu of workers’ compensation. These are negotiated agreements which trump workers’ compensation law. Most of the CBA provisions have an end date to the full salary, perhaps six months or a year, but some do not. Practitioners need to review the relevant CBA.

Q. Is there any statutory end date for temporary disability benefits?

Yes, 400 weeks is the statutory limit.

Q. How does one calculate an average weekly wage and temporary disability rate for non-salaried employees?

This is by far the most complex issue when dealing with temporary disability benefits. One must bear in mind that N.J.S.A. 34:15-37 (which is the law that defines wages) was written in 1945. The economy was vastly different and many laws that we deal with routinely today did not exist. The statute provides for three basic rules which I will simplify:

  1. If the employee is paid by output (piecework), use an average of the 26 weeks preceding the date of accident.
  2. If the employee works a standard work week, take the hourly rate of pay and multiply by the hours worked. So, an employee who works 40 hours per week at $20 per hour has a wage of $800 per week with a temp rate of $560.
  3. If the employee works in a job that has fewer hours than the ordinary work week, use the actual hours worked by that employee times the hourly rate and calculate an average weekly wage.

Sounds simple, right?  The problem is that there is an infinite variety of fact patterns that are encountered in cases. Judges and practitioners often use the 26-week payment period because that generally makes sense for long-term employees, even though it was designed for piecework workers when the law was passed in 1945. There are, however, some real problems with using the 26-week method.

  1. What if the employee only worked 5 or 10 weeks before the injury or even one day before the injury?  
  2. What if the 26-week period included four weeks of unpaid FMLA leave?  Does one exclude that period of time? Judges generally say yes, we should use 22 weeks then.
  3. What if the 26-week period included a one-time longevity payment for years of service that skews the amount of wages?
  4. What if the employee gets a large annual bonus that just happens to fall inside or outside that 26-week period?  Should that bonus be counted?
  5. What if the employee’s union settled a protracted negotiation with a large wage increase that is retroactive to a date three years ago when the accident occurred?  Does that get counted?

These issues and other variations are dealt with every day in workers’ compensation court. In resolving these disputes, it is important to remember the underlying principle:  temporary disability benefits are meant to compensate an injured worker for the amount of money he or she would have been paid but for the work injury or occupational disease. There are wage disputes in thousands of workers’ compensation cases each year, but these disputes are resolved in court without litigation in almost every case.

Q. On a related topic, what do wages include in the first place?

This statute is also very old. Wages generally are payments that are taxable to the employee, including commissions, overtime pay, tips, gratuities, bonuses, and lodgings furnished by the employer free of charge to the employee. N.J.S.A. allows only $25 per week for board and lodging to be counted toward wages. But again, this statute goes back to 1945 and there is currently a bill to amend this provision in the legislature. There is no mention in the statute about how to treat mileage reimbursement for use of one’s vehicle for work purposes, but this is not likely a “wage” because the IRS does not tax standard rate mileage reimbursement.

Q. When does the employer have a right to terminate temporary disability benefits in New Jersey?

Unlike most states, termination of temporary disability benefits in New Jersey does not generally depend on the return-to-work date. New Jersey is an MMI state, meaning that both medical and temporary disability benefits end at maximal medical improvement, even if the employee cannot return to his or her job. Sometimes an employee returns to work full duty before MMI is reached. The rule is that temporary disability ends on the earlier of return-to-work full duty or MMI. So, use whichever date occurs first.

Q. What is the rule on termination of temporary disability benefits based on a light duty return-to-work offer?

The law on terminating benefits based on a light duty job offer stems from an important case called Harbatuk. That case established that an employer can terminate temporary disability benefits on a light duty offer. If the employee refuses to accept the light duty job offer, the employer does not have to pay temporary disability benefits. The employer must show that it communicated the offer of light duty to the employee. When there are issues on light-duty return to work, they usually focus on whether the employee can safely perform the light duty job. The opinion of a treating doctor or the results of a functional capacity examination can be helpful. If the light duty job comes to an end before the employee has reached MMI or can return to work full duty, temporary disability benefits must be reinstated.

Q. What if the employee is treating but keeps missing therapy or medical appointments. Can the employer terminate temporary disability benefits in that event?

Yes, under N.J.S.A. 34:15-19, failure to cooperate with medical treatment allows the employer to terminate workers’ compensation benefits. Once the employee returns to treatment, benefits resume but the employer does not go back and repay the period of non-cooperation.

Q. Does the employer owe temporary disability benefits to a seasonal employee even when the seasonal employee would not have worked?

There are many seasonal employees in every state. Teachers have been considered seasonal employees by our Supreme Court as well as landscapers, employees of golf courses that are closed for the winter, and many other employees whose jobs depend on the weather. The general rule is that employers do not have to pay temporary disability benefits during the off season, so teachers will not be paid during the summer months when they would not have taught for the school. There is an important exception, however. The New Jersey Supreme Court makes clear in the Outland case, (which concerned a teacher), that if the employee can prove he or she would have worked another job in the summer but for the work injury, then temporary disability benefits must be paid. The burden of proof is on the employee. In that case, temporary disability benefits would be based on the actual wages for the secondary employment.

Q. Does New Jersey have “partial temp?” 

No, New Jersey does not have “partial temp” as the term is defined in other states. This usually refers to a situation where an employee has reached MMI and can return to work, but the new job now pays less than the employee used to earn before the accident. In other states there are often workers’ compensation laws that require the employer even after MMI to pay for a portion of the new job’s wage loss. New Jersey does not have any such law.

I have been asked many times if the following restricted hours scenario qualifies as partial temp. Frankly, the term “partial temp” does not appear in our statute. Consider a situation where the authorized doctor is treating an injured worker, Rebecca, and she has not yet reached MMI. Assume that Rebecca normally gets paid $25 per hour for a 40 hour week for a total of $1,000 per week. She gets paid $700 per week in temporary disability benefits while out of work. After Rebecca has spine surgery, the treating doctor recommends that she phase into her job and work just four hours per day for four weeks. Her employer then pays her $20 per hour for four hours per day or $500 per week (half pay). Rebecca’s lawyer argues that she is entitled to be compensated for the 20 hours she could not work because of the restriction placed on her by the authorized doctor. The issue for the Judge of Compensation to decide will be whether these 20 lost hours are considered payable as temporary disability benefits.

There is no published case on this precise issue. The key to the resolution of this issue will be the court’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 34:15-38. This statute reads that temporary disability includes days lost and any fraction of days thereof that the employee is unable to work due to the accident. Rebecca will argue that she is owed $350 per week in temporary disability benefits. (70% times $500). She will argue these lost hours count toward temporary disability as defined in New Jersey. Judges who have encountered this situation have recommended payment by the carrier or employer for the half days that the employee cannot work. Once MMI is reached, however, Rebecca would have no argument if her new job resulted in a lower wage.

Q. Does New Jersey allow employers to stop temporary disability benefits when an employee is fired for cause?

Yes, the leading decision is Cunningham v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., which involved termination of an employee who violated his “last chance” agreement. The petitioner had previously injured his knee at work and was under active treatment for his knee when he was fired. After his termination his treating doctor saw petitioner, and the doctor issued a note stating petitioner was unable to work. The petitioner filed a motion for temporary disability benefits and the Judge of Compensation ruled in his favor. The employer appealed, and the  Appellate Division reversed in favor of the employer. The Appellate Division ruled that petitioner had no wages to replace because he had been terminated for cause. Other cases have followed the rule in Cunningham. There are no published cases that address termination of temporary disability benefits when a downsizing or mass firing of employees occurs.

Feel free to email the undersigned with any questions not addressed in this blog.

The post Everything You May or May Not Want to Know About Temporary Disability Benefits Under New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law appeared first on NJ Workers' Comp Blog.

Cases involving aggravation of preexisting conditions are quite common in workers’ compensation and are often complex.  Adequately addressing such claims requires obtaining the pre-accident medical treatment records and obtaining expert opinion on whether the work accident aggravated the prior condition. Donald Smith v. H & H Transportation, Inc., No. A-3568-21 (App. Div. December 20, 2023) presents a scenario in which two highly qualified spine surgeons disagreed on whether there was aggravation caused by the work injury.

The facts were not disputed.  Mr. Smith was injured in a motor vehicle accident on January 7, 2017 while driving a tractor trailer.  Years before this accident, he was treated for his back, starting in 2005. Again in 2009 he received treatment for his back.  A CT scan was done of the mid-back in March 2016 revealing degenerative changes.

After the January 2017 work accident, petitioner saw Dr. Anthony Parks, who ordered an MRI, which showed a “right sided herniated disc at T7-8.”  Dr. Parks suggested a second opinion, which took place with Dr. Ryan Cassilly, an orthopedic surgeon at Garden State Orthopedics. Dr. Cassilly received the previous 2016 CT scan and compared that result to the new MRI in 2017.  He felt that the petitioner’s disc abnormalities at T7-8 were not related to the January 2017 motor vehicle accident because the disc was calcified and because the bone spurs between the vertebra had fused, suggesting to Dr. Cassilly that petitioner had a long-standing degenerative condition.  Dr. Cassilly concluded that there was no need for further causally-related treatment.  Respondent then terminated medical and temporary disability benefits.

On his own, petitioner saw Dr. Gregory Przybylski, a neurosurgeon, who reviewed the 2017 MRI.  Dr. Przybylski believed that petitioner suffered from radiculopathy related to the protrusion at T7-8.  He recommended a CT guided selective nerve block at T7-8.  Dr. Przybylski performed five spinal surgical procedures over the next 28 months, including a fusion procedure.

Petitioner filed a motion for medical and temporary disability benefits.  When asked whether he had told the three physicians involved in this case about his prior medical history, he insisted that he had done so but asserted that all three doctors failed to record the history in their reports.  The Judge did not credit this testimony.  All three doctors testified that petitioner never revealed to them his prior medical history.

The case focused mostly on the testimony of Dr. Cassilly, who performed respondent’s IME, and Dr. Przybylski, who performed multiple surgical procedures on petitioner.   Dr. Cassilly said that he saw no spinal cord compression and viewed the 2017 MRI as showing “multiple osteophytes or bone spurs coming off his thoracic spine.”  He said that these findings were not a result of any acute injury but were degenerative.  He also opined that the five surgeries were not a result of any acute injury and were not related to the 2017 motor vehicle accident.  The two main points Dr. Cassilly emphasized were:

  1. The 2016 (pre accident) CT scan showed that the herniated disc at T7-8 was “fully calcified” well before the 2017 accident.
  2. The size of the bone spurs at T7-8 had not changed at all.

Dr. Przybylski admitted that he had not reviewed the 2016 CT scan when he first testified on the issue of causation. After he reviewed the 2016 CT scan, he retracted his opinion that the 2017 work accident caused the calcified disc and agreed with the opinion of Dr. Cassilly on this issue.  Nonetheless, Dr. Przybylski maintained that petitioner’s symptoms were worsened by the 2017 accident and required the five surgical procedures.  The main point that he raised was that petitioner’s condition improved following the nerve block procedure. That led him to conclude that the 2017 accident had caused a nerve injury. 

The Judge of Compensation was faced with two conflicting opinions on causation from two well respected board-certified spine surgeons, one who performed an IME on causation and need for treatment, and the other who operated on petitioner’s spine on an unauthorized basis.  The issue at hand was whether the 2017 accident aggravated the petitioner’s pre-accident condition at T7-8.  The Judge found that Dr. Cassilly’s opinion was “credible, logical and consistent, both medically and factually.”  She concluded that the medical records indicated “evidence of long-standing degenerative etiology rather than acutely post-traumatic” injury.  In the opinion of the Judge of Compensation, there was no aggravation, exacerbation, or acceleration of the petitioner’s underlying condition because the 2016 CT scan and 2017 MRI showed essentially the same findings.

The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Judge of Compensation for all the reasons cited by the Judge of Compensation in her opinion.  The Court first observed case law that states that an employer takes the employee as the employer finds the employee, with all preexisting conditions that may exist. The Court added, “the injury is not compensable if a preexisting condition is its sole cause,” citing Sexton v. Cnty. of Cumberland/Cumberland Manor.

In weighing the experts’ opinions, the Appellate Division noted that Dr. Przybylski changed his position on the issue of prior calcification of the disc once he saw the 2016 CT scan.  Dr. Cassilly arguably had been in a better position to opine on causation because he did review the 2016 CT scan at the time of his examination and report.   

This is one of the best cases to read in years to understand the legal standard of aggravation in workers’ compensation.  The Judge of Compensation focused on whether there was any objective medical evidence of change in the preexisting medical condition caused by the work accident.  That is the legal standard in New Jersey.  Quite apart from what the injured worker may say, when the medical studies are essentially the same pre- and post-accident, aggravation is not likely to be found. Dr. Przybylski conceded that the studies were essentially the same once he learned about and reviewed the prior 2016 CT scan, but he offered an after-the-fact analysis that if petitioner improved from a nerve block, then the work accident must have injured the nerve.  This argument failed to impress the trial and appellate courts.  The other interesting aspect of this case is that the opinion of the one-time IME physician on causation carried the day over the opinion of the surgeon who performed five spinal surgical procedures. 

Practitioners, employers, and adjusters regularly analyze the issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition, and the process can be quite challenging. Each year there are literally thousands of cases in New Jersey that turn on this very issue of aggravation. Getting all the prior medical records is a major challenge, particularly in New Jersey, because our state allows no interrogatories in traumatic injury claims.  New Jersey also permits no depositions of the petitioner, except in extraordinary circumstances. Obtaining past medical history depends heavily on what is asked in the medical examination. But what if the doctors write that they asked about prior treatment history, but petitioner denied any prior medical treatment to the injured body part?  How does the employer or carrier then find out about prior treatment?  That is exactly what happened in this case.  All three doctors testified that petitioner denied any prior mid-back treatment.  For his part, petitioner insisted that he told the doctors about his prior back treatment, but they all failed to record in their reports what he told them.

It is not stated in this opinion how the respondent managed to obtain the prior treating records at issue. We only know from reading the opinion that somehow the records were obtained, thereby allowing the issue of aggravation to be addressed in detail by the Judge of Compensation and Appellate Division. Getting the prior records is not the end of the process.  Once the prior medical records are received, they must be provided to the medical expert, who then thoroughly reviews them along with all post-accident medical records, examines the petitioner carefully and opines on whether the work accident caused objective changes to the preexisting medical condition.  This process may sound easy but in practice it is far more difficult than it sounds. It takes a lot of time and effort to do this right.

The post Respondent Defeats Alleged Claim of Aggravation and Motion for Medical and Temporary Disability Benefits Seeking Payment for Five Spinal Surgeries appeared first on NJ Workers' Comp Blog.

There are not many cases involving eligibility for temporary disability benefits while attending school. The case of Soto v. Hoosier Care, Inc., No. A-0507-22 (App. Div. December 11, 2023) discusses this issue directly.

The facts in the opinion are threadbare, and the reader will have many more questions than answers after reading this decision. The employee, Ms. Soto, was injured while working as a CNA for Hoosier when a picture frame fell from a wall onto her on April 21, 2018.  She injured various parts of her body, including her neck and shoulder.  The case settled for 25% permanent partial disability apportioned 15% cervical and 10% for the right shoulder.

Petitioner returned to work and began working for Complete Care as a CNA.  She then worked for Interim Agency as a home health aide in the fall of 2019.  In 2020, she started taking classes at Ocean County College 15-25 hours per week.  In July 2021, Interim Agency closed.  Petitioner got a job briefly with Lars Home Care and thereafter she applied for unemployment benefits.  She received unemployment benefits from September 2021 until April 14, 2022. She continued as a full-time student at Ocean County College while she looked for a job.

In March 2022, petitioner filed a reopener petition in the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation seeking further benefits from her 2018 accident.  Petitioner saw Dr. Kris Radcliff on April 7, 2022.  He reviewed her prior MRIs and ordered x-rays.  He diagnosed a disc collapse and observed that the 2018 work injury materially contributed to this diagnosis. Dr. Radcliff felt that an anterior cervical fusion in the neck would be necessary. Petitioner testified that Dr. Radcliff took her out of work on April 7, 2022.  However, this was not stated specifically in the text of the doctor’s report and the doctor never testified.  The report itself said petitioner’s status was “out of work.”  Respondent objected to petitioner’s testimony that the doctor told her not to work as hearsay, but the objection was overruled because Dr. Radcliff’s report had gone into evidence uncontested at trial.

Petitioner filed a motion for medical and temporary disability benefits on May 13, 2022.  Respondent agreed to pay medical benefits but denied the claim for temporary disability benefits.  The Judge of Compensation ordered temporary disability benefits commencing April 15, 2022, which was the day after unemployment benefits ended.  The Judge of Compensation noted in an amplification of his prior decision that petitioner “became unemployed because her employer closed; sought employment while collecting unemployment benefits; attended college; and could not work because of injuries causally related to her 2018 work accident, as Dr. Radcliff found.”

On appeal, respondent argued that petitioner removed herself from the workforce by attending college and argued that petitioner failed to prove that she would have been working but for her work-related disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Judge of Compensation. “We conclude Hoosier’s argument is without merit.  It is undisputed that Soto maintained employment from 2019 until the summer of 2021.  As the compensation judge found, Soto ‘worked two jobs after the accident with Hoosier.’ The judge specifically determined Soto became unemployed because her employer, Interim Agency, went out of business in July 2021. Thereafter, she collected unemployment benefits from September 2021 to April 2022, and certified weekly to searching for employment.

The court also rejected respondent’s argument that petitioner’s college pursuits amounted to voluntary unemployment, stating, “… college attendance alone is not dispositive of her employment status. Soto testified that she started school in the fall of 2020, continued to work while in school, and continued to seek employment while in school.”  The Court rejected the application of Tamecki v. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, 125 N.J. Super. 355 (App. Div. 1973) to the facts of this case.  The court observed that Tamecki involved a college student who was injured during a temporary summer job and received temporary disability benefits only until he returned to school full time, at which point temporary disability benefits were properly terminated. “Here, the judge found Soto credibly testified that her college studies did not change her involuntary unemployment status and that she suffered loss of wages as a direct result of her compensable injury.”

The medical aspect of this case is murky because the surgeon never testified.  All the court had was a medical report.  Respondent focused on the deficiencies of the report of Dr. Radcliff.  That report barely mentioned anything about inability to work other than stating that petitioner was “out of work.”  Those are two different issues. Petitioner came to her own rescue in this case by testifying that Dr. Radcliff specifically told her that she could not work when he saw her on April 7, 2022.  That was the single most important fact in this case because it pertained directly to the claim for temporary disability benefits.  A doctor has to take an employee out of work for an employee to obtain temporary disability benefits.  Without petitioner’s own statement that the doctor told her not to work, petitioner would likely have lost her claim.  Hoosier’s employer objected that this statement from petitioner constituted hearsay.  The Judge and the Appellate Division allowed petitioner’s statement mainly because both parties had agreed to enter into evidence the report of Dr. Radcliff.  Additionally, the Court also noted that the Judge of Compensation found petitioner to be very credible in her testimony.

A review of this unreported opinion suggests that this was a trial apparently in which only one person testified:  the petitioner.  Since Dr. Radcliff did not testify, one will never know if he had been aware when he saw petitioner on April 7, 2022 that petitioner was already out of work on unemployment benefits or knew that she was also going to school 15-25 hours per week.  There is also no discussion in the opinion about how many classes petitioner was taking when she saw Dr. Radcliff and whether these classes took place during working hours.  It is also not explained in the opinion why the unemployment benefits ended on April 14, 2022.  Further, there is no mention of whether surgery ever took place or if it did take place, when the surgery occurred. There are simply insufficient facts in this opinion for a full understanding. The record that the judges had to work with was very limited because apparently only one witness testified. The opinion mentions no testimony from any other witnesses.  Employers will certainly question how an employee who was receiving unemployment benefits for seven months while taking classes would be entitled to receive temporary disability benefits when surgery was recommended for an injury that occurred four years earlier and when the record does not recite whether or when surgery took place or whether her classes continued during working hours after April 7, 2022.  

The dearth of facts in this case makes it hard to understand the outcome in this particular case. Putting that observation aside, the legal principle articulated here is important for all practitioners, employers and adjusters to consider.  This case limited the 1973 decision in Tamecki to its specific facts, namely that a young college student who was injured in a temporary summer job but returned to school full time was not entitled to temporary disability benefits during the college school year.   The court said the Soto case presented completely different facts.  It involved an employee who had a full-time working history while taking classes. The Court concluded that Tamecki does not prevent such an employee from obtaining temporary disability benefits when an employee is injured during the course of employment but also is taking classes.

The post Appellate Division Holds Employee Who Worked and Attended School Is Eligible for Temporary Disability Benefits After Unemployment Benefits Terminated appeared first on NJ Workers' Comp Blog.

Practical Advice in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation

The general rule is that an injured worker is entitled to TTD for the time frame that the authorized treating doctor placed the employee out of work.

Pursuant to Monaco v. Albert Maund, Inc., 17 N.J.  Super. 425 (App. Div.), 21 N.J. Super. 443 (App. Div. 1952), generally, TTD continues until the employee is able to resume work or until the employee “is as far restored as the permanent character of the injuries will permit” [placed at MMI], whichever happens first. This means that TTD can cease in either of the following situations: a. The employee is placed back to work and authorized treatment is ongoing and continuing; or b. The employee is placed at MMI from treatment, even if the employee is discharged with permanent work restrictions (irrespective of whether the restrictions can be accommodated).

In addition to the above rule, there are some tricky situations where TTD benefits may be stopped for other reasons.  Below are hypothetical situations regarding TTD, and how we would recommend handling each scenario.

Scenario 1: Bob works for a large retailer and is injured on February 2, 2022. Bob is receiving authorized treatment and is initially not placed out of work. On March 14, 2022, Bob is caught stealing from the register at work, as well as stealing $4,000 worth of merchandise from the electronics department. The authorized doctor places Bob out of work as of March 17, 2022; it is anticipated he will be out of work for a few months. After an investigation into the theft, Bob is terminated for cause on March 28, 2022. The employer pays TTD from March 17, 2022 through the date of his termination, March 28, 2022. Bob alleges that he is owed TTD from March 17, 2022 onward, as he was placed out of work by the authorized doctor on March 17, 2022 and has not yet been returned to work.

Our position is that Bob is owed TTD only for the date range of March 17, 2022 through March 28, 2022, the date of the termination.

There are quite a few cases dealing with this issue. In all of the cases, the main point comes down to this: The purpose of TTD is to compensate for actual lost wages. As such, in a situation like this, our position would be that Bob is not owed TTD after March 28, 2022.

The most important case on this scenario is Cunningham v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 386 N.J. Super. 423 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 188 N.J. 492 (2006), where the Court stated that Cunningham must “prove that he actually lost income…because of his disability”. The Court noted that TTD is wage replacement for “actual lost wages”, and not “theoretical or fictitious wage loss”.

 The Court in Cunningham was guided by the holding of Outland v.  Monmouth-Ocean Educ. Serv. Comm’n, 154 N.J. 531 (1998). In Outland, the Court held that in order for a teacher who teaches during the school year to be entitled to TTD during the summer months, she must prove that she would have had summer employment. The case of Gioia v. Herr Foods, Inc., No. A-0667-10T4 (App. Div. October 11, 2011) also deals with an employee terminated for misconduct (in that case, violation of the employer’s drug policy), and the holding of Gioia makes it clear that TTD is for actual lost wages, not theoretical lost wages. In a case where an employee is terminated for cause, at the point of his termination, he no longer has wages. If there is no actual wage loss, TTD is not owed.

Scenario 2: Nate has been placed out of work by the authorized doctor and is not working. TTD is being issued. The authorized doctor, on May 15, 2022, recommends that Nate undergo a shoulder surgery. Nate receives all surgical clearance and on May 22, 2022, the authorized doctor schedules the surgery to occur on June 5, 2022. However, Nate has a pre-planned vacation June 4- June 18. Then he is moving residences during the end of June, and then will have family visiting during July as well as various other summer activities, so he wants to push the surgery back until at least August 15. Nate asserts that he is entitled to TTD during the time frame of May 22, 2022 through August 15, 2022.

Our position is that Nate is not entitled to TTD during the time frame of May 22, 22022 through August 15, 2022.

Nate is refusing treatment, for reasons that are not related to any health or medical issues. An employee not complying with the authorized doctor’s treatment plan, and treatment schedule, based on a personal reason or personal preference, is not entitled to TTD benefits.

Our position is that if petitioner is not actively treating, or is missing appointments, he is not entitled to TTD under N.J.S.A. 34:15-19, which states that after an injury, an employee must submit himself for physical examination within this state, as often as may be reasonably requested, and, “the refusal of the employee to submit to such examination shall deprive him of the right to compensation during the continuance of such refusal”. Since Nate is failing to, or refusing to, comply with treatment and is not cooperating with authorized treatment, he is not entitled to TTD during his non-cooperation.

Scenario 3: Ronald, an electrician, was injured on January 15, 2022. The authorized doctor places Ronald out of work February 10 through March 1, 2022. On March 2, 2022, Ronald is released to work light duty; the doctor noted that full duty was anticipated on or around April 2, 2022. The employer can accommodate light duty work and can pay Ronald his usual salary in his temporary light duty position; Ronald was offered the light duty position on March 2, 2022. Ronald refuses the light duty position, as he does not want to work “desk duty”; Ronald maintains he is owed TTD from March 2, 2022 through April 2, 2022 (or whenever he is in fact returned to work full duty).

Our position is that Ronald is not entitled to TTD as of March 2, 2022, the date that light duty was offered, and declined.

We recommend relying on Harbatuk v. S & S Furniture Systems Insulation, 211 N.J. Super. 614 (App. Div. 1986) in a situation like his. If the employee is offered a light duty job, and the employee refuses the light duty job, the employer can terminate TTD upon the refusal. For this reason, it is a good idea to put the light duty offer in writing, dated, and reference the date that the authorized doctor placed the employee back to work light duty, and the date light duty could be accommodated, particularly as under Williams v. Topps Appliance City, 239 N.J. Super. 528 (App. Div. 1989), “the burden is on the employer to show that light work was offered to [the employee] and that it was refused”.

The above scenarios re-emphasize two important things to keep in mind with respect to issuance of, and entitlement to, TTD benefits: (1) TTD is to compensate for actual lost wages; and (2) An employee’s refusal to comply with offered light duty and/or the authorized doctor’s recommended course of treatment may be cause for TTD to be terminated.

The post Advice To Employers In Dealing With Complex TTD Scenarios appeared first on NJ Workers' Comp Blog.

Capehart Blogs

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Categories