Amazon.com v. DeeDee Magee
Amazon.com v. DeeDee Magee, No. 42860.
Supreme Court of Nevada. September 22, 2005.
Case Details:
This case concerns workers’ rights and questions whether an employee who is treated for injuries sustained on the job is considered temporarily totally disabled or temporarily partially disabled when she is able to return to work on a part-time basis.
Timeline:
April 18, 2001: Dee Dee Magee injured her right wrist while working at her job with Amazon.com in Fernley, Nevada. Magee sought treatment at a local emergency room, and after an examination, the treating physician diagnosed her injury as possible carpal tunnel syndrome, placed her in a forearm splint and prescribed naproxen.
April 23, 2001: Magee sought further medical advice regarding the cause and extent of her injury. After an examination, the physician noted that Magee should be placed on restricted duty.
May 14 – June 10, 2001: Magee visited several physicians. Each physicians recommended Magee keep her workload to light-duty work with some physical restrictions and limitations.
June 11, 2001: Magee was released to light-duty work with a four-hour-a-day work restriction after a doctors’ appointment.
August 13, 2001: Magee underwent corrective surgery on her right wrist. Following the surgery, she experienced pain in her left hand and was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist. Consequently, Magee underwent a second surgery to repair her left wrist.
October 30, 2001: Magee was released to full-duty work with no restrictions.
Argument:
Before the initial wrist injury, Magee worked approximately ten hours per day, four days a week, for a total of forty hours per week. She was paid $10.00 per hour for a gross weekly wage of $400.00. After her initial wrist injury, when Magee was restricted in the number of hours she could work, she still earned $10.00 an hour. The record indicates that her daily and weekly hours varied, but that she generally never worked more than four hours a day or sixteen hours a week.
Magee eventually submitted workers’ compensation claims for the injuries to her wrists. Amazon.com never disputed Magee’s diagnosis or that her condition was the result of her employment.
From May 5 through October 30, 2001, Amazon.com’s insurer found that Magee was eligible for temporary partial disability benefits, with at least two periods when she was eligible for temporary total disability benefits.
The first period of Magee’s temporary total disability, which began after the right-wrist surgery on August 13, 2001, was terminated on August 24, 2001, because she returned to light-duty work and collected temporary partial disability benefits. Temporary total disability benefits were reinstated on October 3, 2001, due to Magee’s left-wrist surgery, but were terminated on October 16, 2001, after her physician released her to light-duty work.
Finally, based upon her release to full-duty work with no restrictions on October 30, 2001, all benefits ceased.
Magee administratively appealed the insurer’s determinations to a workers’ compensation hearing officer with the Nevada Department of Administration, asserting generally that under NRS 616C.475, she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the entire period of May 5, 2001, through October 30, 2001. The hearing officer disagreed and affirmed the insurer’s previous determinations.
Summary and Conclusion:
The court concluded that a worker released to work with restrictions is only temporarily partially disabled; therefore, her position and salary need not comport with NRS 616C.475,1 which sets forth standards regarding when an employer, by offering modified employment, can cease making temporary total disability payments.
The court chose to reverse the district court’s order denying Amazon.com’s petition for judicial review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.