United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Godwin
| Decision Date | 23 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 1789-91-1,1789-91-1 |
| Parties | UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC., et al. v. John GODWIN. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Rapaport (Fay F. Spence; Knight, Dudley, Dezern & Clarke, on brief), for appellants.
Stephen M. Smith (Joseph Smith, Ltd., on brief), for appellee.
Present: BARROW, BENTON and MOON, JJ.
This appeal from the Worker's Compensation Commission challenges the commission's decision reinstating compensation benefits and requiring the employer to provide rehabilitation services. The employer contends that the employee refused selective employment and that the commission had no authority to order that the employer retrain the employee because the employee had sufficient marketable skills to obtain employment. We hold that the commission did not err in finding that the employee did not unjustifiably refuse selective employment and that the commission was authorized to order retraining if the employer is unable to provide job placement that will return the employee to his approximate pre-injury earnings.
Godwin, the employee, suffered a compensable back and neck injury which left him physically disabled and unable to resume his pre-injury work. Before the injury, he was employed for twelve years as a driver and delivery man for the employer. His hourly wage was $15.74, and his average weekly wage before the injury was $744.55.
Approximately eighteen months after the traffic accident in which he was injured, a rehabilitation nurse, at the request of the employer, consulted with Godwin and arranged for two job interviews for him. One was an interview for a cashier's job with a wage of $3.85 per hour which he did not attend because it conflicted with an engagement to see a new lawyer about a pending settlement. He attended the other interview for a security guard job with a wage of $4.00 per hour and testified that the job involved standing for long periods of time, which he was unable to do. The employer introduced a document from the prospective employer indicating that Godwin was not hired because he had a poor attitude and that he expected to go to school to learn a trade.
Several months later on the advice of a rehabilitation counselor hired by his attorney, Godwin returned to that prospective employer and obtained a security job. He testified that after one day on the job, he was required to go to the emergency room for treatment of his back.
Godwin's employment future is unclear. The rehabilitation counselor hired by his attorney testified that after training and with his limited ability to lift, Godwin's earning capacity would be seven to ten dollars per hour. He also testified that because of his disability Godwin would be limited to about fourteen percent of jobs available in the labor market. The employer's rehabilitation nurse testified that Godwin was in financial difficulty and suffering from emotional depression when he was scheduled for the job interviews. She did not see him following these scheduled interviews but testified that his long record as a driver for the employer would make him an attractive candidate for employment. Both rehabilitation specialists agreed that the job market was not good.
Godwin contended before the commission that he should be retrained for a position that would approximate his pre-injury wage. The commission found that he desired to have retraining for a job that would be appropriate for his physical limitations and that he was eager to return to work for the employer but that no job was available.
The commission found that "no reasonable basis for suspension of benefits" existed because "neith...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...services is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the evidence.Id.at 662, 568 S.E.2d at 377; UPS v. Godwin,14 Va.App. 764, 767, 418 S.E.2d 910, 912 (1992). Accordingly, the Commission's finding that claimant unjustifiably refused to cooperate with vocational rehabilitatio......
-
Urias v. Winkler's, Inc.
...second written statement after the remand. Findings concerning vocational rehabilitation are factual. United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Godwin, 14 Va. App. 764, 767, 418 S.E.2d 910, 912 (1992). Since no hearing was held after the remand, the commission made no factual findings. As discussed belo......
-
NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING v. Lawrence
...Code § 65.2-510]." James v. Capitol Steel Construction, 8 Va.App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 489 (1989); accord UPS v. Godwin, 14 Va. App. 764, 767, 418 S.E.2d 910, 912 (1992) ("An unjustified refusal to attend an interview or an employee's refusal to cooperate at an interview may constitute......
-
Davis v. J.D. Littlejohn, Inc., Record No. 0966-05-4 (VA 11/1/2005)
...an employee is justified in refusing to cooperate with efforts of an employer is a factual finding." United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Godwin, 14 Va. App. 764, 767, 418 S.E.2d 910, 912 (1992) (citing Johnson v. City of Clifton Forge, 7 Va. App. 538, 546-47, 375 S.E.2d 540, 545-46 In affirming ......