Submittal Brief of Respondent Insurance Carrier
SUBMITTAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT AND ITS INSURANCE CARRIER I. ... , taken on behalf of respondent and its insurance carrier on April 29, 2003, with three (3) exhibits. ... Deposition of Bill Hosman taken on behalf of respondent and its insurance carrier on June 3, 2003, with three (3) exhibits. ... Discovery deposition of Patrick Roskilly taken on behalf of respondent and its insurance carrier on November 4, 2002, with no exhibits. ... Claimant met with personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with respondent on October 25, 2001. ... Respondent was insured by AIG Insurance Company on October 25, 2001. ... On October 25, 2001, claimant was employed as an assembler in the Parts Control Area, Department 613 of respondent’s plant. ... 10) Claimant treated with various physicians and continued working for respondent pursuant to temporary work restrictions. ... Stein’s opinion claimant’s degenerative disk disease was not related to his employment with respondent. ... Claimant was laid off from his employment with respondent on December 14, 2001. ... The key question with regard to claimant’s entitlement to work disability benefits is whether claimant was laid off while performing accommodated work for respondent. ... Hosman’s job was to make sure claimant’s work for respondent was within his temporary restrictions prior to the layoff in December 2001. ... Hosman testified that, but for the economic layoff, claimant could have continued to work for respondent without any accommodation necessary based upon the permanent work restrictions of Dr. ... Given claimant’s apparent tendency to skew the facts to conform with the desired outcome of his workers compensation claim, it is not surprising it is the claimant’s opinion he could never perform the job he was doing for respondent at the time of his layoff within his permanent work restrictions. Claimant claimed to be unaware respondent has a policy against employees lifting over 50lbs. ... The fact that respondent has engaged the services of IAM CREST to insure that employees are able to work within both temporary and permanent work restrictions highlights its commitment to continue to employ injured workers within those restrictions. The sophisticated job analysis performed by respondent’s ergonomics department is more reliable than claimant’s estimates of what he was required to lift. ... In the event the Court finds the claimant is entitled to an award based upon a work disability, respondent submits claimant does not have a 100% wage loss. ... Claimant’s degenerative disk disease is not related to his employment with respondent. ... In the event the Court chooses to find claimant’s preexisting condition was permanently aggravated by the injury on October 25, 2001, respondent submits claimant is entitled only to an award based upon a 5-10% functional impairment as the claimant was subject to a general economic layoff from an unaccommodated position.