No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court affirmed that the minimum compensation rate does not apply to temporarily totally disabled workers, but reversed the Board's award of 100% wages, requiring instead the statutory 66 2/3% of average weekly wage. The court also affirmed that compensation began in December 1998, not December 1997, as the claimant failed to prove the tardiness causing termination was work-related.
Hiligh v. DC Department of Employment Services: Workers' Compensation Ruling
This case involved a Federal Express worker who was injured on the job and sought workers' compensation benefits. The worker claimed he should receive full wages (100% of his pay) while temporarily unable to work, and that his benefits should start from December 1997. He also argued that being late to work, which led to his termination, was related to his workplace injury.
The court made a mixed ruling. It agreed that minimum compensation rules don't apply to workers who are temporarily totally disabled from their injuries. However, the court rejected the full wage claim, ruling that injured workers should receive the standard rate of 66⅔% of their average weekly wages, not 100%. The court also determined that benefits should begin in December 1998, not the earlier date the worker requested, because he couldn't prove his tardiness was actually caused by his work injury.
What this means for workers: If you're injured at work and temporarily can't work at all, you'll typically receive about two-thirds of your regular wages through workers' compensation, not your full pay. You must also clearly prove that any work-related problems (like tardiness) are directly connected to your injury to receive benefits for those issues.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.