Opinion ID: 878995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: Did the court err when it characterized Gierke's retirement as voluntary? Gierke argues that his retirement was not voluntary because the Gazette created and offered the plan to its employees, rather than the plan being inspired by Gierke himself. Gierke further contends that the plan was not voluntary because the Gazette encouraged the plan and thus exerted subtle pressure. In his brief, Gierke omits any mention of the $12,180 lump-sum payment he received in consideration for his early retirement. The Gazette contends that Gierke retired of his own free will and that his job did not seriously aggravate the pain in his shoulder. As we discussed in the first issue, Gierke's injury did not prevent him from performing his job at the Gazette. The Workers' Compensation Court denied permanent disability benefits to Gierke because he could have continued to work for the Gazette if he had not voluntarily retired. As the court stated: He was adequately performing his duties and was under no threat of being fired when he elected to take an early retirement. Both Dr. Scott and Dr. Ray concluded that Gierke could continue to drive his company pick-up truck, which was equipped with power options, air conditioning and tilt-wheel steering. Although Gierke contends that the Gazette forced him to retire, his contention is directly rebutted by his own testimony: Q. Now, I am going to ask you this, Mr. Gierke: Were you fired by the Gazette, or did you quit? A. I don't feel I was fired. Definitely not. Later in his testimony, Gierke stated: Q. Okay. Did Michel or anyone else ever say, Darrell, either you retire or we're going to fire you? A. No, sir, they did not. Gierke alleges that his retirement was made under duress. However, the voluntary retirement program was offered to every Gazette worker, with no special focus on Gierke. The Workers' Compensation Court properly concluded, based upon testimony by Gierke and his Gazette supervisor, that Gierke voluntarily retired. In consideration for his retirement, he received the $12,180 payment. We affirm the Workers' Compensation Court's judgment. Gierke's retirement was not related to any failure in his job performance. His retirement was voluntary and uncoerced.