WILLIAM DODGSON, Employee/Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC WORKS, SELF-INSURED, Employer/Respondent,
and
MEDICA HEALTH PLANS – OPTUM, Intervenor.
No. WC18-6186
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
October 31, 2018
TEMPORARY
TOTAL DISABILITY; JOB OFFER – REFUSAL. The compensation
judge’s determination that the employee unreasonably
refused an offer of employment consistent with the
rehabilitation plan is supported by substantial evidence in
the record.
Diane
JoliCoeur-Enga, McSweeney / Langevin, LLC, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for the Appellant.
Thomas
J. Miller, Office of the City Attorney Susan L. Segal,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondent.
Determined by: Sean M. Quinn, Judge, David A. Stofferahn,
Judge, Gary M. Hall, Judge
Compensation Judge: Kirsten M. Tate
Affirmed.
OPINION
SEAN
M. QUINN, Judge.
The
employee appeals from the discontinuance of his wage loss
benefits. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On July
20, 2017, while working for the City of Minneapolis water and
sewer department, the employee, William Dodgson, suffered an
injury to his left index finger, resulting in the amputation
of the finger. The employee first treated with Dr. Mark Urban
and later with Dr. David Falconer, a hand specialist. During
the first three months, his medical care included partial
bone removal, wound care, therapy, splinting, and narcotic
pain medication. He had swelling of the hand, jagged bone
regrowth, and the fingernail grew back in a “hook
nail” pattern, causing excruciating pain and
sensitivity.
The
employee’s doctors restricted the use of the left hand
and disallowed driving or operating heavy machinery while
taking pain medication. The employee personally owned a
manual vehicle which he could not operate given these
restrictions. To get to various medical appointments, the
employee depended on his wife or father-in-law, though
neither were able to provide reliable day-to-day
transportation for the employee to get to and from work.
In the
first few months following the injury, the employee was
assigned two light-duty temporary jobs by the employer. The
employer offered the employee a third light-duty job, which
the employee refused because the job was outside of his
physical restrictions. Near the end of October 2017, the
employer offered another temporary light-duty job to the
employee, which involved admitting and escorting visitors of
a secured building.[1] The employee rejected this job offer
on the basis that he had no transportation as he was
precluded from driving and he could not rely on his wife
and/or father-in-law. When it was suggested the employee use
public transportation, he refused, citing to the cost.
Evidence in the record reflects the cost to take a bus ranged
from $2.50 to $5.00 per day. The employee also objected to
using a bus because of the distance he would have to walk
from his home to a bus stop, and from the bus stop to his...
