JACKIE A. CHOPP, Employee, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., SELF-INSURED, Employer/Appellant.
WORKERS= COMPENSATION COURT OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 29, 2003
HEADNOTES
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - DISMISSAL. The compensation judge erred in dismissing the Notice of Intention to Discontinue compensation benefits filed by the employer based on the holding in Manderfeld v. J.C. Penny, 526 N.W.2d 52, 52 W.C.D. 152 (Minn. 1995).
Vacated and remanded.
Determined by Stofferahn, J., Wilson, J., and Rykken, J.
Compensation Judge: Donald C. Erickson
Attorneys: James P. Paciotti and Diana Bouschor, Dodge, Andresen, Haag, Paciotti & Butterworth, Duluth, MN, for the Appellant. Thomas R. Longfellow, Sieben, Polk, LaVerdierre & Hawn, St. Paul, MN, for the Respondent.
DAVID A. STOFFERAHN, Judge
The self-insured employer appeals from the compensation judge=s dismissal of its notice of intention to discontinue compensation. We vacate and remand for a hearing on the merits of the proposed discontinuance.
BACKGROUND
Jackie Chopp, the employee in this matter, was injured on July 1, 2001, while in the course and scope of her employment with U.S. Steel Corporation, self-insured employer. The employee received facial fractures when the track truck driven by the employee struck loaded cars on the track, causing her face to strike the wheel of the truck. The self-insured employer accepted primary liability and has paid wage loss benefits, medical expenses and rehabilitation services.
On August 6, 2002, the employer offered the employee a modified light-duty job, asserting that the job was within the restrictions imposed by the employee=s injuries. The employee attempted the job two different days but left after two hours each day.
The employer filed a notice of intention to discontinue compensation benefits on September 6, 2002, alleging that the light-duty work offered to the employee was within her physical restrictions and seeking to discontinue temporary total disability benefits. An administrative conference was held on October 8, 2002, which resulted in an order from the compensation judge allowing the discontinuance of benefits.
The employee filed an objection to discontinuance which was heard by a compensation judge on February 20, 2003. At the hearing it was indicated that the employee had returned to work with the employer on February 3, 2003 following another job offer made by the employer. The parties advised the compensation judge that the issue for determination was the employee=s entitlement to temporary total disability from October 15, 2002 through February 2, 2003.
Without a motion filed by any party, the compensation judge dismissed the discontinuance filed by the employer. The employer appeals.
DECISION
The compensation judge dismissed the employer=s notice of intention to discontinue compensation on the basis of a holding in Manderfeld v. J.C. Penny, 526 N.W.2d 52, 52 W.C.D. 152 (Minn. 1995). According to the compensation judge, Manderfeld holds that an employee has the right to contest whether or not a job offer is suitable. Only when there has been a final determination of suitability does the time for the employee=s acceptance begin to run. In the meantime, the employee continues to receive benefits. The judge reasoned that since Ms. Chopp had returned to work during the time that the suitability of the job offer was being contested, her benefits could not be discontinued and the NOID was, essentially, moot.
The court in Manderfeld was considering the application of Minn. Stat. ' 176.101, subd. 3e, a statutory provision which has since been repealed and was not in effect as of the date of the employee=s injury. We do not consider here whether or not Manderfeld has precedential value in determining job suitability issues under the current law. The parties agreed that Manderfeld was misapplied in the present case. The compensation judge erred in dismissing the employer=s notice of intention to discontinue compensation benefits.
The employee argues that the compensation judge considered the evidence in this matter and decided the employee=s entitlement to benefits on the merits. While there are findings in the compensation judge=s determination which refer to evidence submitted at the outset of hearing, it is clear from the record that a full hearing on the merits was not conducted. It is impossible to conclude on the record before us that the parties were given an opportunity to fully litigate the issues in this matter.
The decision of the compensation judge is vacated and this matter is remanded to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing on the merits of the discontinuance filed by the employer.