Opinion ID: 1281018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner's First Attempt to Receive Rehabilitation Services

Text: In March 1999, after being released to return to work but being informed by Simonton's safety manager that no work was available within the petitioner's medical limitations, the petitioner contacted his claims representative at the Division. The petitioner discussed with the claims representative the possibility of vocational rehabilitation, and on March 16, 1999, the Division entered an order referring the claimant to Quality Rehabilitation Services, Inc. (QRS). The record suggests that QRS had been designated as Simonton's preferred provider for rehabilitation services by the Division, and was the exclusive provider for rehabilitation services for Simonton employees. Several days later, an employee of QRS spoke with respondent Simonton, and was told by Simonton that the petitioner was not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. Simonton stated that the petitioner was a seasonal employeethat is, his job lasted only so long as the company was working on a particular project. Apparently, all seasonal employees were laid off from Simonton in December 1998, approximately one month after the petitioner stopped working due to his injury, and the seasonal employees were told there would be no position after the project was completed. The record indicates that Simonton related to the QRS employee its concern that the petitioner was receiving any workers' compensation benefits as a seasonal employee, and stated that the petitioner is not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services due to the position being a seasonal position[.] In response, the QRS employee agreed to contact the Division on Simonton's behalf to correct eligibility matters. The record reflects that on March 23, 1999, QRS contacted the petitioner's claims representative at the Division, and informed the claims representative that the petitioner was hired as a seasonal employee and would not be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services due to this fact. The claims representative agreed that if Mr. McKenzie was a seasonal employee then Mr. McKenzie would not be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. That same day, the petitioner was contacted by the claims representative and told that he was not eligible for vocational rehabilitation benefits. Subsequently, the petitioner hired an attorney. The petitioner's attorney contacted the claims representative's supervisor at the Division, and the supervisor acknowledged that the Division was wrong in denying vocational rehabilitation services to the petitioner because he was a seasonal employee. [1] However, no action was taken because the petitioner was planning to have back surgery. Following the petitioner's back surgery in September 1999, a letter by the petitioner's surgeon was sent to the Division recommending some vocational retraining ... through workman's compensation. The record suggests that the letter was received by the petitioner's claims representative; it is not clear what action, if any, the Division took in response to the letter.