In a worker's compensation case decided December 1, 2011, Gonzales v. Morgan, the Supreme Court determined that the appellant (Gonzales) should be denied permanent total disability (PTD) mainly due to his general lack of effort in obtaining sedentary employment through continued education.

          Gonzales applied for PTD in 2009 after sustaining an industrial injury in 2003 and remaining unemployed for the following six years. Gonzales cited his illiteracy as a mental handicap that had hindered his employability even before his was physically injured. After his injury in 2003, however, he felt that he was "inherently permanently and totally disabled." While the commission acknowledged that Gonzales faced some intellectual obstacles, they found that "there was no evidence that he would not benefit from such services" as remedial education.

          The commission noted several pertinent factors in their decision against Gonzales. First, Gonzales' slew of jobs over the years was proof that he was competent enough to adapt to different work environments and learn the applicable skills. This led to the next observation over Gonzales' claim that he could not perform in a sedentary work environment due to his illiteracy. The commission recognized "that this deficiency impaired his ability to perform sedentary employment," but the fact that Gonzales made absolutely no effort to better himself through vocational rehabilitation rendered his claim illegitimate. According to the evidence of two letters sent to Gonzales, he was given the opportunity over two months to respond and participate in a rehabilitation program. Gonzales ignored the letters and failed to return calls from the program advocates, making himself unavailable to the opportunity.

          This blatant dismissal of educational rehabilitation is what ultimately caused Gonzales to be denied for PTD. It was cited that "the Injured Worker's failure to undergo appropriate and reasonable vocational rehabilitation to increase his residual functional capacity and/or obtain new marketable employment skills... [was] the basis for the denial of his permanent total disability application."

In short, Gonzales was held accountable for his own failure to retain employment of any kind. The decision of the Supreme Court in this instance is a demonstration for employers and employees alike that appropriate measures must be taken to show positive intent. For example, in another case of worker's compensation in 2010, Nissin Brake Ohio, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., "the employer challenged an award of PTD to a claimant who began a vocational rehabilitation program [designed to enhance her employment prospects] but could not finish it due to health problems unrelated to her industrial injury." The key to this case, in which PTD was awarded to the claimant, was that this case "involve[d] a claimant who began a rehabilitation program but was then prevented from finishing due to circumstances beyond the claimant's control."

Recent News You Might Have Missed