Share This Article:
![judge 1587300 640](https://www.workerscompensation.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/judge-1587300_640.jpg)
Stuart, FL (WorkersCompensation.com) -- When a worker experiences an injury at work, getting her back to the job might involve some workplace modifications, including light duty, work-from-home, or other arrangements. Not surprisingly, then, a worker impacted by workers' compensation processes may likely be one who needs reasonable accommodations as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
As a refresher, the ADA's reasonable accommodation requirements under 29 CFR 1630.9 spell out that:
(1) It is unlawful for a covered entity not to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified applicant or employee with a disability, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business.
(2) It is unlawful for a covered entity to deny employment opportunities to an otherwise qualified job applicant or employee with a disability based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to such individual's physical or mental impairments.
To help see how the overlap of ADA requirements and workers' compensation play, we look at 5 cases.
Case 1: Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors, 42 NDLR 237 (6th Cir. 2011).
Key facts: The worker had a heart condition for which he took a leave of absence and had a pacemaker and defibrillator installed. As an accommodation, he sought use of an electromagnetic frequency alarm to alert him of danger in the workplace that could harm his pacemaker. The employer made the accommodation contingent on the worker's waiver of workers' compensation benefits.
Ruling: The worker could not establish a failure to accommodate claim because his case fell under the "regarded as" prong of the ADA, which refers to when employers believe that an employee has a disability. "Regarded as" employees can't make a case for reasonable accommodation without showing that they have an actual disability. However, the employer's offer about the waiver did raise the alarm on a retaliation claim for the worker. According to the court, there was enough for a retaliation claim because it was not unreasonable for a jury to conclude that the adverse employment action of having to waive workers' compensation benefits was precipitated by the worker's asking for accommodations.
Case 2: Aldrich v. Boeing Co., 13 NDLR 72 (10th Cir. 1998).
Key facts: A Boeing worker developed flexor tendon tenosynovitis from working with hand tools. He settled his workers' compensation claim for $30,000. The worker argued that ergonomic training or reassignment were reasonable accommodations that could have allowed him to perform the essential functions of his job.
Ruling: There were triable questions for a jury on whether Boeing could have accommodated the worker. Although Boeing was not required to bump another worker from their job, there was evidence that employees with medical restrictions were eligible to be reassigned to certain positions.
Case 3: Mitchell v. Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 16 NDLR 63 (2d Cir. 1999).
Key facts: A school custodian who had a prosthetic leg due to a previous amputation developed "skin breakdowns" and other health issues that he attributed to "strenuous walking" at work and for which he was awarded weekly workers' compensation benefits. When the school district terminated the custodian's employment, the custodian sued, alleging, among other things, a failure to accommodate under the ADA.
Ruling: The court rejected the custodian's claim because in support of his workers' compensation claim, he maintained that he was too disabled to work. Although he argued that there were possible new positions that could have been created to allow him to continue working, the custodian failed on this argument too. The court noted that the ADA does not require employers to find another job for an employee who is not qualified for the job he was doing to meet reasonable accommodation requirements.
Case 4: Caraballo v. City of Jersey City Police Department, 204 A.3d 254 (N.J. 2019).
Key facts: A detective filed a workers' compensation claim related to a knee injury he experienced on the job and underwent surgery. Several years later, the detective became a candidate for knee replacement surgery, and he sought the surgery as a workers' compensation benefit, which was denied. The detective argued that this denial was a failure to accommodate under state law analogous to the ADA.
Ruling: Following the analysis from Desmond v. Yale New Haven Hosp. Inc., 41 NDLR 233 (D. Conn. 2010), the court explained that while reasonable accommodations involve the work environment and workplace barriers, employers have no obligation to acquiesce to an employee's request for certain benefits or remunerations. As in Desmond, the court held that employers have no responsibility to monitor an employee's medical treatment or ensure that an employee receives appropriate treatment.
Case 5: Yovtecheva v. City of Philadelphia Warter Dept., 47 NDLR 58 (3d Cir. 2013).
Key facts: A chemist for a city received a workers' compensation award due to dizziness and trouble breathing the chemist suffered as a result of her exposure to certain fumes in the workplace. She also sought reasonable accommodations under the ADA in the form of moving to a different laboratory or replacement of the offending chemical. The chemist claimed that the workers' compensation judge's findings of disability were preclusive in her ADA case.
Ruling: The court did not reach the question in the chemist's case because her refusal to attempt the use of a partial-face respirator as a reasonable accommodation warranted summary judgment against her. Nonetheless, the court did explain that even if workers' compensation findings in some circumstances could have a preclusive effect in a federal District Court, in this case the workers' compensation judge's narrow focus on whether the chemist was entitled to benefits did not address the issue of accommodation.
AI california case management case management focus claims compensability compliance compliance corner courts covid do you know the rule ethics exclusive remedy florida glossary check Healthcare health care hr homeroom iowa leadership medical medicare NCCI new jersey new york ohio opioids osha pennsylvania Safety state info technology tennessee texas violence washington WDYT west virginia what do you think women's history month workers' comp 101 workers' recovery workers' compensation contact information Workplace Safety Workplace Violence
Read Also
About The Author
About The Author
-
Frank Ferreri
Frank Ferreri, M.A., J.D. covers workers' compensation legal issues. He has published books, articles, and other material on multiple areas of employment, insurance, and disability law. Frank received his master's degree from the University of South Florida and juris doctor from the University of Florida Levin College of Law. Frank encourages everyone to consider helping out the Kind Souls Foundation and Kids' Chance of America.
More by This Author
Read More
- Sep 11, 2024
- Claire Muselman
- Sep 11, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Sep 10, 2024
- Claire Muselman
- Sep 09, 2024
- Claire Muselman
- Sep 09, 2024
- Liz Carey