Workers’ compensation benefits discontinued upon individual’s retirement based on a finding that he had “removed himself from the labor market”

To contact us Click HERE

Workers’ compensation benefits discontinued upon individual’sretirement based on a finding that he had “removed himself from the labor market” Richardson v Schenectady City School Dist., 2012 NY Slip Op05230, Appellate Division, Third Department
Dana Richardsonobjected to a Workers' Compensation determination that he had voluntarilyremoved himself from the labor market and denied his claim for workers'compensation benefits.
Richardson, a health teacher for the Schenectady City SchoolDistrict, sustained a variety of compensable injuries, including injuries to his headand back, while breaking up a fight between students in February 2006. InDecember 2008, he submitted a letter to the school district advising it that hewould be retiring effective June 2009.
After the effective date of Richardson’s retirement, the schooldistrict and its workers' compensation carrier moved to suspend benefits basedupon Richardson's “voluntary withdrawal from the labor market”. Ultimately, Workers'Compensation ruled that Richardson had, indeed, withdrew from the labor marketand as a result was no longer entitled to awards upon his retirement in 2009.
The Appellate Division affirmed Workers' Compensation’s decision,explaining that “Whether [Richardson’s] retirement constituted a voluntarywithdrawal from the labor market presented a factual issue for the Board, andits determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.”In this instance Workers' Compensation relied on the report of a physician whoperformed an independent medical examination and opined that, while Richardson sufferedfrom a moderate to marked disability, he was capable of working in a modifiedduty capacity.
Another element that was considered: Richardson’s letterinforming the school district indicated that “he was taking advantage of a veryfavorable retirement incentive.” Richardson did not indicated that his physicaldisabilities played a role in his decision to retire and, in addition, hetestified that he never discussed retirement with his doctors, did not advisethe employer that he was retiring due to his disabilities and never asked foran accommodation to return to work within his restrictions.
Although there was “evidence that may have supported adifferent result,” the Appellate Division said that the determination wassupported by substantial evidence and thus would not be disturbed.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_05230.htm