Lockhart v. Consulate Health / CCMSI
JCC Newman (Tallahassee)(Matt Bennett)(8-13-2020) TPD denied. Claimant was a CNA at a nursing home and sustained compensable injuries. Work restrictions were imposed by the authorized orthopedic. The Employer offered a sedentary position as a “resident monitor” within the restrictions imposed by the authorized orthopedic. The claimant returned to work in the modified position but alleged difficulties with the position and began leaving early, calling out and ultimately failed to continue reporting for work. As a resident monitor, the claimant was assigned to sit at a desk and monitor residents to make sure they did not leave the building. She was never told that she should physical restrain a resident, only that she should notify another employee if a resident tried to leave. She also claimed she could not do the position due to pain and drowsiness from her authorized medications. She stopped reporting for work despite several letters from the Employer requesting her to return to work with the final letter advising that failure to report would be considered job abandonment and her voluntary resignation. She did not respond and was terminated. The JCC did not find the claimant credible regarding her inability to do the work offered and determined that her refusal to continue working as a resident monitor was not justified, nor supported by any medical evidence. The JCC accepted the Employer’s testimony that, but for the claimant’s refusal to work, the claimant would have remained employed in the employer’s return to work program indefinitely and accordingly the JCC held that the Employer established continued availability of suitable employment after termination. The claimant’s admission in deposition that she would not be willing to return to work for the Employer if offered another position within her restrictions was also evidence of her continued refusal of suitable employment after termination. The JCC held that the claimant voluntarily limited her income by refusing suitable employment, such refusal was not justified, and denied all claimed TPD benefits, both before and after the claimant’s termination. Click here to view Order