Tennessee’s Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in Bibiane Francoeur v. Amerimed Medical Solutions, LLC holds that if an insured worker is restricted from driving, the employer does not have to provide transportation and can deny the worker disability payments if he or she cannot make it to work.
In the case of Bibiane Francoeur v. Amerimed Medical Solutions, LLC, the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board addressed a unique issue regarding the intersection of an employee’s medical restrictions following a work-related injury and the employer’s obligations concerning return-to-work offers and disability benefits.
Overview of the Case
Bibiane Francoeur suffered injuries in a work-related incident on January 9, 2024, resulting in restrictions from her treating physician, Dr. Michael Tompkins, which included a no-driving mandate. Following this, her employer, Amerimed Medical Solutions, offered her a light duty position, asserting that it complied with her work restrictions. Francoeur declined this position, citing her inability to drive to work, and the employer subsequently terminated her temporary disability benefits.
Ruling of the Appeals Board
The Appeals Board reversed the trial court’s decision, which had ordered the reinstatement of Francoeur’s temporary disability benefits. The key findings of the Board included:
- Employer’s Obligation: The Board emphasized that while employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate restrictions when offering light duty work, there is no statutory obligation for an employer to provide transportation for an employee unable to drive due to work-related injuries unless driving is an essential function of the job.
- Employee’s Responsibility: The ruling underscored that if an employee declines a reasonable job offer made in accordance with their medical restrictions, they bear the burden of demonstrating that their refusal was reasonable. Francoeur’s inability to transport herself, while unfortunate, did not render the employer’s offer unreasonable, particularly as driving was not a requirement for the job she was offered.
- Legal Precedent: The Appeals Board referenced prior cases, particularly **Newton v. Scott Health Care Center** and **Dennis v. Polymer Components**, establishing the principle that an employee’s commute is generally not covered under workers’ compensation benefits unless specific conditions are met, such as the employee being a traveling employee under the course of employment. The no-driving restriction, while significant, did not change the fundamental understanding of commuting in relation to employment.
Conclusion
The Appeals Board concluded that the employer’s offer of a light duty job was reasonable and that Francoeur’s inability to accept due to her no-driving restriction did not justify the continuation of her temporary disability benefits. This ruling emphasizes the necessity for employees to not only communicate restrictions but also to demonstrate reasonable responses to employment offers when managing their return to work after injuries. The decision was a pivotal interpretation of the intersection of employer obligations and employee rights under Tennessee’s workers’ compensation laws, reiterating the parameters within which these relationships operate.
Why it matters
This result is a big surprise. Workers with serious injuries will frequently have a driving restriction along with other physical restrictions. Crafty insurance companies can now offer the injured worker accommodations for their physical restrictions knowing that the injured worker will not be able to find transportation to work. Therefore, the crafty insurance company will not be able to use this case to deny disability benefits to the injured worker.