Grinberg: TD Due When Modified Responsibility Led to COVID Shutdown| Staff Compensation Information

By Gregory Grinberg

Thursday, December 3, 2020 | 143 | 0 | min read

So that we don’t all forget that the coronavirus is not just tracking our steps in the real world, let me remind you that COVID-19 is also casting a long shadow over the world of employee compensation.

Gregory Grinberg

The risk of contracting the virus is not just a problem for all of us as humans, and not only is the risk of contracting the virus a possible basis for a workers’ compensation case, but the non-industrial impact on the world as well Overall, a footprint on claims unrelated to a positive COVID test.

How better to illustrate this point by bringing you the Corona v California Walls Inc. case, a recent decision of the WCAB panel?

The applicant, Mr Corona, suffered a recognized orthopedic occupational injury and temporary disability benefits have been paid. Shortly before facing the same problem that continues to face countless workers in California, the United States and the world, he returned to the changed service: on-site assignments resulted in job stoppage and unemployment for the applicant.

So here is the question: Does the defendant owe temporary disability benefits if the placement order prevented him from taking into account the applicant’s work restrictions?

The position of the defendant is appropriate in my estimation. It’s California, not your employer, stopping you from collecting a paycheck. Take on the guv. Likewise, the tax-exempt temporary disability benefits requested by the applicant are not available to employees who were not injured commercially or not at all. These workers have to use their services elsewhere.

The proposal to require an employer to pay temporary disability benefits under California guidelines puts an industrially injured worker in a better position than the uninjured worker.

The judge ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that the defendant owed TTD for the period during which placement of work required cessation of work.

In the appeal proceedings, the Board of Appeal for compensation for employees confirmed. Among other things, the WCAB relied on its stake in Dennis. In the Dennis case, the WCAB en banc took the view that the Defendant Prison did not make a “good faith” offer for regular, modified or alternative work when the Candidate Prisoner was released from custody and was therefore unable to accept the position .

Of course, the present Corona case applies this line of reasoning to the question of the obligation to provide TD benefits while Dennis was dealing with a voucher.

But of course, the same concerns I expressed about my involvement with Dennis apply here:

• The applying truck driver has lost his driver’s license due to a DUI? Too bad, pay TD.
• The applicant’s nurse lost her license because she failed to keep up with legal training. Too bad, pay TD.
• Applicant deported? Too bad, pay TD.

Of course, the burden of this policy rests with the employer and his insurer, which in turn rests with all of us. Any time a Californian becomes frustrated about getting fewer goods or services for the same amount of money, one of the reasons is the cost of getting that good to market.

I hope now, as the Dennis statement was published, that we will soon have a binding, higher authority that benefits like TD and a voucher are NOT due if the lack of return to work is not related to the accident at work.

Gregory Grinberg is the managing partner of Gale, Sutow & Associates’ SF Bay South office and a certified specialist in employee compensation law. This post was reprinted with permission from Grinberg’s WCDefenseCA blog.