Skip to main content

Baum v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

COLOCTAPPJune 20, 2019No. 18CA1990Cited 7 times
Defendant WinUnited Airlines
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Claim Appeals Office's decision upholding United Airlines' right to take a credit for temporary total disability benefits under its approved wage continuation plan, which resulted in the claimant's benefits exceeding the statutory cap and barring additional compensation.

Excerpt

Baum sustained work-related injuries that caused him to be temporarily totally disabled. United Airlines (UAL) paid Baum full pay under its wage continuation plan after he sustained an admitted work-related injury, but UAL also claimed a credit on its final admission of liability (FAL) for the comparable temporary total disability (TTD) benefits it would have otherwise been statutorily required to pay Baum. This credit increased Baum's reported TTD benefits, pushing them over the statutory cap. Baum challenged UAL's right to take the credit. The Division of Workers' Compensation director concluded that benefits paid under the wage compensation plan are not similar to vacation or sick leave. Therefore, their accrual and exercise did not bar UAL from taking the claimed TTD credit. A panel of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) affirmed on review. On appeal, Baum argued that CRS § 8-42-124 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because the plan was approved by the director without the opportunity for injured workers to challenge it in court. UAL's plan was adopted and approved before Baum sustained any injury. Baum could not meet the threshold test of being deprived of a property interest without due process when the plan was approved because he had no such interest when the plan was approved. Baum also argued that this absence of appellate review of wage continuation plans violates separation of powers. The separation of powers doctrine does not guarantee that the judicial branch will be given oversight over every action taken by a governmental entity. In adopting CRS § 8-24-124, the legislature made wage continuation plans subject to the director's, not its own, approval. Further, the judicial branch is not excluded from reviewing these plans through court review of agency actions. The approval of CRS § 8-42-124 did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. Baum next contended that the Panel erroneously affirmed the director's grant of summar

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A United Airlines employee named Baum was injured at work and became temporarily unable to work. United Airlines paid him full wages through their company benefit plan while he recovered. However, the airline also claimed credit for the temporary disability benefits they would normally be required to pay under state workers' compensation law. This credit pushed Baum's total reported benefits above Colorado's legal limit for workers' compensation payments, which prevented him from receiving additional compensation he sought. **What the Court Decided** The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of United Airlines. The court said the airline was allowed to take credit for the disability benefits when calculating the total amount paid to Baum. This meant Baum couldn't receive more money beyond what he'd already been paid through the company's wage continuation program. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling shows that when employers have generous benefit plans that pay full wages during work injuries, workers might not receive additional workers' compensation benefits if the total exceeds state limits. Workers should understand that company benefit programs, while helpful, may affect their ability to collect separate workers' compensation payments. The decision reinforces that employers can use their own benefit payments to offset workers' compensation obligations.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.