What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant testified credibly that he applied for six jobs and contacted other potential employers during the 16 months after medical release.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports finding that applicant mitigated damages by attempting to obtain employment.
From the decision · page 2Applicant testified that he began looking for work "as soon as he
was released" (11/16/20 SOE, Page 3, 1-5). He was released from
medical treatment on June 12, 2014 and was hired on October 27,
2015. Therefore, applicant was available, but not working, for a 16
month period of time. Petitioner contends that the applicant's job
Defendant offered no legal authority to claim credit for unemployment benefits not received by applicant.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports finding that applicant is entitled to lost wages without deduction for unemployment benefits.
From the decision · page 6We next address defendant's contention that applicant failed to mitigate his damages
because he did not seek unemployment benefits he could have obtained from the EDD. In this
regard, defendant cites no authority, and we are aware of none, for the proposition that applicant's
duty to mitigate damages includes a duty to seek unemployment benefits for which defendant may
subsequently claim a liability credit. To the contrary, the authorities of which we are aware suggest
otherwise.
Applicant testified he is willing to return to work but is currently not looking due to Covid-19 pandemic and advanced age.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports finding that reinstatement is appropriate when safe reopening guidelines are met.
From the decision · page 6Lastly, we address defendant's contention that applicant is not entitled to reinstatement
because he removed himself from the labor market to avoid potential health risks resulting from
the Covid-19 pandemic. Here, applicant specifically testified that he is willing to return to work
for defendant. (Minutes of Hearing (Further) and Summary of Evidence (132a Only), November
16, 2020, p. 3:7.) In addition, we concur with the WCJ's reasoning that the fact that applicant did
not search for work after his March 2020 termination from a service advisor position with Ford of
Irvine does not suggest that he removed himself from the labor market given the circumstances of
the pandemic. (Report, p. 6.) We are therefore unable to discern grounds to support defendant's
contention that applicant is not entitled to reinstatement.