From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Padilla v. Digital Equipment Corp.

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division II Plank and Roy, JJ., concur
Nov 24, 1995
908 P.2d 1185 (Colo. App. 1995)

Opinion

No. 93CA1536

Decided November 24, 1995

Review of Order from the Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado WC No. 4-149-631

CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Alexander Ricci, William A. Alexander, Jr., Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Petitioner

Law Office of Kent L. Yarbrough, David T. McCall, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent Digital Equipment Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General, James C. Klein, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office


This matter is before us for reconsideration, after remand from the supreme court, of our decision in Padilla v. Digital Equipment Corp., 902 P.2d 414 (Colo.App. 1994). Pursuant to the supreme court's directions on remand, our reconsideration is focused upon the effect of the court's holding in PDM Molding, Inc. v. Stanberg, 898 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1995) upon our decision in Padilla, supra. We remand for further proceedings.

In PDM Molding, supra, the supreme court held that an employee terminated for fault following a work-related injury is not automatically precluded from receiving temporary total disability benefits. After termination for fault is established, the employee may nevertheless demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her work-related injury contributed in some degree to a post-discharge wage loss, thus entitling the employee to temporary total disability benefits.

Upon reconsideration of the record in this case, we are satisfied that neither the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) nor the Industrial Claims Appeal Panel considered the impact, if any, of claimant's injury upon his post-discharge wage loss. Although claimant offered his opinion, at the hearing before the ALJ, that his inability to find work following his discharge was attributable to his injury, that evidence was not addressed or considered germane to the issues as then framed. In addition, further development of the evidentiary record pertaining to the cause(s) of claimant's wage loss may be necessary.

Accordingly, since no findings were made as to whether claimant's work-related injury contributed in part to his post-termination wage loss, the cause is remanded to the Panel for such further proceedings as may be necessary to determine that issue as required by PDM Molding, Inc. v. Stanberg, supra.

JUDGE PLANK and JUDGE ROY concur.


Summaries of

Padilla v. Digital Equipment Corp.

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division II Plank and Roy, JJ., concur
Nov 24, 1995
908 P.2d 1185 (Colo. App. 1995)
Case details for

Padilla v. Digital Equipment Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Augusto Padilla, III, Petitioner, v. Digital Equipment Corporation…

Court:Colorado Court of Appeals. Division II Plank and Roy, JJ., concur

Date published: Nov 24, 1995

Citations

908 P.2d 1185 (Colo. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

In re Garbiso v. Wal-Mart, W.C. No

Hence, he noted that the relevant question is whether the claimant performed a volitional act or, considering…

Young v. Dillards Dept. Store, W.C. No

In that context "fault" requires that the claimant must have performed some volitional act or exercised a…