Recently, Thomas Krushauskas learned that you cannot be healthy and disabled at the same time.
In July of 2005, during the course of his duties as a stock picker at General Motors, Mr. Krushauskas injured his right shoulder. After attempting to continue to work for two months despite his injury, Krushauskas finally filed for workers compensation benefits. He began receiving compensation as of September of 2005.
In May of 2006, Mr. Krushauskas was invited to attend GM’s Attrition Plan meeting. He was not singled out for the Attrition Plan; being a member of the United Auto Workers union he was automatically invited.
As the meeting title implied, GM was offering employees the option to voluntarily terminate their employment with the company. Under the terms of the Plan, employees received a lump sum payment as compensation for their voluntary severance. In order to show acceptance of the conditions of the Plan, the employee had to sign a document designated Form A stating that the employee was not signing the Plan agreement under duress and was not disabled. The employee also had to sign Form B which contained a general release of all claims against GM, including any loss of disability pay or benefits.
Krushauskas subsequently signed Forms A and B and received a payout of $35,000.
GM terminated Krushauskas' workers compensation benefits effective July 1, 2006.
In response, Krushauskas filed a grievance with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board stating that GM terminated his benefits without obtaining a supplemental agreement to do so, or notifying Krushauskas of a benefit offset, or obtaining a judicial order permitting GM's action - all of which are set forth in the Workers Compensation Act as requirements before terminating benefits. Krushauskas also stated in the grievance that it was not his intention to retire.
Although the Workers Compensation Judge found that GM violated the Act by unilaterally suspending Krushauskas' benefits on July 1, 2006, without taking the required preliminary actions, the judge concluded that there was no basis for GM to be penalized because Krushauskas was not denied compensation due to GM's action.
The judge found that no damages were owed to Krushauskas because he voluntarily retired from GM when he signed the agreements related to GM’s Attrition Plan. Based on that finding, the judge issued an order which essentially retroactively suspended Krushauskas' benefits effective July 1, 2006 - some six years after the fact.
The judge's decision was recently affirmed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Krushauskas did not claim that he did not understand the documents. Also, after signing the Plan documents, Krushauskas had 45 days to revoke his acceptance, which he failed to do. In addition, the judge's findings of fact note that, "(t)he Claimant initially testified that he did not decide to retire. The Claimant subsequently acknowledged that he did retire. The Claimant’s testimony regarding his physical condition and reasons for not returning to work is inconsistent with Paragraph five of Form B of the Employer’s special attrition plan. The claimant acknowledged that Form B . . . of the Employer’s special attrition plan sets forth that the acceptance is not under duress, and that he is able to work and suffers from no disability that would preclude him from doing his regularly assigned job."
So, Mr. Krushauskas is now out of work and out of benefits.
Which goes to show: you can't eat your cake and have it, too.
Disclaimer:
This site was established to provide information about the law, designed to educate users about issues in which they may have an interest. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although I go to great lengths to make sure the information provided is accurate and useful, I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that the information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment