Opinion ID: 2633163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Capua's Termination and the Determination of Entitlement to VR Services

Text: In a letter to Capua, dated July 9, 1999, Weyerhaeuser advised Capua that it would not be able to provide [her] with indefinite light duty work, and that VR services would help her secure alternate employment elsewhere. Since [Capua] had expressed an interest in VR, [Weyerhaeuser] advised her to contact Laurie Hamano, a VR counselor, for services, or any other counselor of her choice. . . . . On August 29, 2000, [Capua] met [Hamano] for an initial informational interview, but did not at that time commit to selecting [Hamano] as her VR provider. [Capua] later interviewed two other VR counselors. By October of 2000, [Capua] still had not decided on a VR provider. On October 13, 2000 [Weyerhaeuser's] new human resource manager, Alan Maeda, met with [Capua] to discuss VR services. [Maeda] told [Capua] that she needed to make a decision about VR services soon. [Capua] wanted more time to think about VR, and promised to make a decision by October 18, 2000. On the morning of October 16, 2000, Capua called Hamano and indicated that she intended to participate in the VR process with Hamano as her counselor. Later that afternoon, Weyerhaeuser issued a letter terminating Capua from her light duty position [hereinafter, the termination letter]. In its termination letter, Weyerhaeuser stated: Although not obligated to, Weyerhaeuser provided you with temporary light duty work in order to afford you time to find another job and further attempted to assist you in [VR]. However, as you know, [Weyerhaeuser] does not have permanent light duty work. We have only provided such light duty work to employees while they are looking for replacement employment. Based on your medical condition, the [c]ompany has made an assessment that we have no current position that you would be medically capable of fulfilling on a regular basis. In light of your refusal to seek [VR services] to help yourself in seeking alternative employment, we have no alternative but to terminate your temporary light duty position and therefore your employment at Weyerhaeuser. Upon receipt of the termination letter, Capua informed Hamano that she had been terminated. However, Capua continued to meet with Hamano and receive VR services because Hamano determined that VR services were appropriate for Capua. [3] Likewise, on November 21, 2000, the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) Disability Compensation Division (DCD) made a determination that Capua was eligible for VR services. [4] Thereafter, on November 30, 2000, pursuant to HAR § 12-14-48, [5] Weyerhaeuser filed its request for reconsideration of the DCD's determination regarding Capua's eligibility for VR services. Weyerhaeuser, relying upon HAR § 12-14-36, contended that Capua was not entitled to VR services. HAR § 12-14-36 provides in relevant part that [a]n employee who has been issued a[PPD] award by the director . . . is determined to have waived the right to rehabilitation. As such, Weyerhaeuser argued that, because Capua had previously received an award for PPD benefits on December 4, 1996, she waived her right to VR services. Agreeing with Weyerhaeuser, the director entered a supplemental decision on May 8, 2001, finding that, under HAR § 12-14-36, Capua had waived her right to VR services. Consequently, Hamano ceased providing VR services to Capua.