Jones v. United States Department of Labor

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