Melchor v General Motors Corporation, 2008 ACO #174
The Plaintiff started work at General Motors on September 12, 1963 and eventually became a pipe fitter. On December 4, 1991, while the Plaintiff was repairing a machine, he slipped on oil and hurts his right knee. He eventually had surgery on the right knee on January 6, 1992. He slipped again in March of 1992. On March 16, 1994, a clip on a high pressure hose broke loose while he was holding it and he was thrown. He received stitches to his forehead and injured his left shoulder. Although he was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff, he returned to work and worked with pain in the right shoulder. He had two injuries to his right knee in 1997. In November of 2005, he slipped and hurt his left shoulder again. His restrictions were renewed in November of 2005, and he last worked on January 10, 2006 because there was no work within his restrictions.

While the Plaintiff was off work, he spoke with an individual in Labor Relations and was told he should sign up for the Attrition Package. He signed the Special Attrition Plan on June 12, 2006. He was advised that it was not necessary that he read it. The Plaintiff testified that his workers’ compensation stopped on September 30, 2006.

The Special Attrition Plan states in Form B, Page 1, the following:

This Acceptance is not under duress and I am able to work and suffer from no disability that would preclude me from doing my regularly assigned job. As such, I acknowledge that I am not entitled to disability pay or benefits.
The Magistrate found that the Plaintiff’s work injuries prohibited him from performing any work that the Defendant provided. This was based on medical evidence and testimony.

The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s decision to accept a severance package caused his wage loss. The Appellate Commission disagreed. The Appellate Commission held that the Plaintiff’s injuries prevented him from performing any work that the Defendant could provide. In other words, his injuries caused his immediate wage loss. The injuries had not resolved. They continued to cause medical impairment that prevented him from performing work. Thus, the Plaintiff’s agreement to sever the formal work relationship did not cause the Plaintiff’s wage loss. More specifically, the Plaintiff in this case suffered work injuries that prevented him from working and then accepted an agreement to sever his employment. The work injury caused the wage loss before the employment decision could cause any wage loss. The Magistrate’s decision was affirmed.