 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson Controls7/28/2000
re of benefits apply. First, Fields did not fail to accept medical services provided by Johnson Controls. Although Fields missed an appointment with Dr. Feldstein which resulted in his dismissal, he did keep several other appointments with Dr. Feldstein, even after Johnson Controls dismissed him. Second, Fields was not intoxicated at the time of his injury, nor is there any indication in the record that he wilfully failed to follow safety guidelines. Although it can be argued that Fields failed to follow the workers' compensation statute when he did not keep his appointment with Dr. Feldstein, the record indicates that his failure to attend was not wilful. Fields specifically told Luzzato that he thought he did not have to go because he was already back to work. Finally, although Johnson Controls argues that Fields refused work by virtue of his misconduct and subsequent firing, Fields did continue to seek work on his own and was employed at a lower rate of pay. Therefore, under the express terms of the statute, Fields did not forfeit his entitlement to compensation.
Nor are we persuaded that forfeiture of workers' compensation benefits should, as a matter of policy, be implied. It is well settled in Delaware that the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the statute's intended goal of compensation to the injured employee. See Histed v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Del. Supr., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (1993). The entitlement to benefits accrues to the injured employee at the time of the accident or event that causes injury. To the extent that injury results in a permanent impairment of bodily condition, the entitlement to benefits is fixed, subject to later evaluation of the extent of the impairment and the earnings capability of the employee. See Peters v. Chrysler Corp., Del. Supr., 295 A.2d 702, 704 (1972). To permit the employer to claim a forfeiture of compensation through its disciplinary process works a deprivation of benefits already fixed at the time of injury. The employer is of course free to discharge an employee for cause under its disciplinary system; but it cannot thereby transfer the legislatively determined process for the payment of workers' compensation, in the absence of express statutory authority.*fn*
Finally, Johnson Controls contends that regardless of whether Fields forfeited his benefits, this case should be remanded for a new hearing on his earning capacity pursuant to the express terms of the Worker's Compensation Act. This argument, however, must be rejected because the parties have stipulated at the initial hearing as to Fields remedial earning capacity. Indeed, the extent of Field's earning capacity ultimately determined by the Board was greater than that originally agreed to by the parties.
IV.
In sum, we hold that forfeiture for lost earning capacity of workers cannot be implied where an employee is terminated for cause. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|