I have previously reported on the Delaware Supreme Court decision in Watson v. Wal-Mart (see Reversal of Fortune.....dated 10/25/11) and in subsequent posts, on the numerous IAB rulings which found that Watson did not apply (see Elementary, My Dear Watson, dated 12/12/11; Parks & Recreation, dated 12/21/11; Let Me Count the Ways, dated 1/9/12). I have been waiting for an IAB outcome that deemed itself a "Watson case". That day has arrived and a big shout out to Ken Carmine for bringing it to my attention.
You never forget your first-so here it is-- Jacki Poore v. Howell F. Wallace, IAB# 1337349 (1/18/12).
So what made this case worthy of invoking the Watson standard?
• Claimant sought out 29 jobs over a 6 month period-more than what could be deemed a cursory job search
• Claimant undertook the labor market survey jobs and reportedly only one was still available at the time
• In addition to her job search, Claimant undertook in good faith a program of vocational training with Goodwill
• Claimant was subject to a light duty work status
• The vocational specialist did not dispute that the jobs targeted by the Claimant were appropriate and quite similar to those identified in the labor market survey
The bottom line?
The carrier's Petition for Review was denied and the Claimant was ruled to be a displaced worker entitled to ongoing TTD. So for those of you who had hoped or dreamed that we had heard the last of Watson, looks like you are out of luck.
To borrow a quote from Sherlock Holmes: "There's money in this case, Watson, if there is nothing else." I think Ken Carmine would agree!
Irreverently yours,Cassandra Roberts
Visit Delaware Detour & Frolic, a law blog by Cassandra Roberts
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.