Total Versus Partial Disability When No Disability from Concurrent Employment
Written by: Samuel Gidaro and Maya Williams
Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, employees are entitled to total disability benefits for as long as the employee is unable to return to work as a result of a work-related injury. An employee who can work with restrictions is entitled to partial disability. While the Act is unambiguous regarding disability benefits for employees as it relates to his or her ability to return to work where they were injured, an injured workers’ entitlement to disability while maintaining concurrent employment is more ambiguous. Additionally, questions often arise regarding a claimant’s ability to decline a job offer while receiving benefits.
An April 2025 case, Amazon.com Services, LLC and Sedgwick CMS v. Carlson (WCAB), answers the question of whether a claimant is entitled to partial or total disability benefits when, at the time of injury, there was concurrent employment but the claimant never missed work with that employer. Additionally, the case addresses whether a claimant’s personal reason for not accepting a modified-duty position on a different shift renders the position unavailable.
In this case, Claimant injured his neck while working for Amazon. He was given light duty restrictions and eventually offered a position within his physical restrictions, vocational capabilities, and geographic area on the overnight shift. Claimant declined the same due to “personal reasons” and was terminated for abandonment. Although Claimant stopped working for Amazon, he never stopped working for his concurrent employer.
The Commonwealth Court relied on the following:
“Where the claimant is not disabled from the other jobs [held at the time of a work-related injury,] . . . it is proper to place the claimant on partial disability, reducing the total disability benefit by the wages earned from the jobs from which the claimant is not disabled.” Res. for Hum. Dev., Inc. v. Dixon (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 306 A.3d 1019, 1023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) [(quoting Miller v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Midlantic Coast Delivery Sys.), 661 A.2d 916, 919 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)].
The Court held that wages received from all concurrent separate employments should be used to determine average weekly wage and weekly compensation rate by the liable employer. A claimant’s concurrent employment changes the calculation and duration of benefits. Further, the degree of a claimant’s disability is determined by reference to how the injury affected his or her earnings, as opposed to looking to the extent of his physical injuries. Additionally, the Court noted that once an employer offers a position within a claimant’s permitted medical restrictions and vocational abilities, the burden shifts to the claimant to show good cause for his or her failure to accept the offer.
Ultimately, the Court decided where Claimant was not disabled from his job with the concurrent employer, he should have been placed on partial disability with an appropriate consideration of the wages earned in the concurrent employment. Further, once Amazon showed it had offered a job within Claimant’s physical restrictions, vocational capabilities, and geographic area, the burden shifted to Claimant to show good cause why the position was not available and/or why he failed to accept the offer.
Accordingly, it appears claimants are only entitled to partial disability, rather than total disability, when continuing to work for a concurrent employer. Claimants must also provide good cause when failing to accept a return to work offer within their restrictions.
If you have any questions about Amazon.com Services, LLC and Sedgwick CMS v. Carlson (WCAB) or how the decision may affect something you are working on, please to not hesitate to reach out to our team at Bennett Bricklin & Saltzburg LLC.