*1 329 Price v Westland PRICE CITYOF WESTLAND 5, Argued (Calendar 4). Docket No. 99046. December 1995 No. Decided May 7, 1996. compensable, injury William Price suffered a work-related back while police serving City Depart- aas officer for the of Westland Police iiyury 1985, sporadically ment. From the date of his until March he jobs, light-duty including sedentary position worked a with access specifically that cot created for him in December 1984. increasing pain stopped working 8, Because of back he on March physician. Subsequently, on the advice of his the defendant’s physician Thereafter, found no work limitations. sought compensation. magistrate worker’s A concluded that the regular duties, was disabled and not able to return to but that he was able to that had been created for Compensation Appeals him December 1984. The Worker’s Board affirmed, concluding testimony police of the chief on April 21, 1986, employ- established a bona fide offer of reasonable ment, suspension and modified the of benefits to that date. The P.J., Appeals, Court of Kelly and Michael J. and Doctoroff, JJ., appeal (Docket 136951). denied leave to No. The Cavanagh, Supreme Appeals, Court remanded the case to the Court of (1992). remand, P.J., Appeals, Mich 971 On the Court of Brennan, JJ., Reilly unpublished opinion per and and affirmed an Danhof, (Docket 150640). plaintiff appeals. curiam No. opinion by joined by In an Justice Justices Levin, Boyle, Supreme Cavanagh, Court held: Mallett, of the chief did not create a fide offer bona employment of reasonable because the defendant failed to limit the specific employment physical offer to that would accommodate the magistrate Compensation Appeals limitations the Worker’s Board found to exist. unreasonably If a disabled worker refuses a bona fide offer of employment, longer reasonable the worker is no entitled to wage-loss during period benefits of refusal. A bona fide offer of degree speci- reasonable must describe with a fair
ficity the duties the disabled is to within the 451 Mich specific employee’s be for a restricted The offer must limitations. jobs. job, unspecified grouping specific job offering case, was not 2. In this the defendant physi- physical limitations described within the cian, were and the wcab concluded limitations the *2 testimony law, appropriate. that the the defendant’s As a matter of position plaintiff’s available does not create was still favored-work employment reasonable because the a bona fide offer of equivocal respect to whether he would allowed with job. specific because the defendant did that The offer fails return to definitively specific employment physical within the limi- not magistrate to exist and the wcab. tations found Reversed and remanded. joined by Justices dis- Riley Chief Justice Weaver, Brickley, senting, demonstrated that the stated that because the evidence employment reasonable defendant made a bona fide offer of plaintiff failing attempt
plaintiff that offer and the refused work, Appeals suspend Court of the decision of the should be affirmed. benefits employer provide a not involve an who refused to This case does job description employee assigned or an to rotate between several jobs. already had worked at the offered to dozen The scope. him, its Nor had he and cannot claim he did not understand unspecified jobs. requested among law been to rotate case possibility of additional does not state that the mere duties destroys an otherwise sufficient offer of reasonable sufficiently specific regarding other The defendant’s offer was potential requirement. all was familiar with perform. responsibilities might While was a he be called on to there slight possibility had would be offered other work he performed previously, comparable the situation was not with consisting unspeci- one in which an was offered specifically possibility excluded the fied duties. The wcab job, could be asked to a different and reflected finding holding plain- that benefits would be reinstated if the supported by assigned tiff were to additional duties. The decision the record. Waldman, O’Hare, Helveston, Hodges &
Sachs, plaintiff. S. for the Barnes, (by Ries), P.C. Granner Girtz, McCubbrey, (by & P.C. Kluczynski, Zamler the defendant. Weglarz), Ronald A. for Price Westland Opinion Court compensation Boyle, J. This worker’s case involves question testimony by the narrow whether defendant magistrate before the establishes a “bona fide offer of 418.301(5)(a); reasonable . . . MCL 17.237(301)(5)(a). MSA We conclude that the testi-' mony does not create a bona fide offer of reasonable employment because defendant failed to limit the specific employment offer to that would accommo- physical date the limitations the and the Compensation Appeals Worker’s Board found to exist.
i dispute plaintiff, serving There is no while aas compensable, defendant, officer for suffered a injury during work-related, back the arrest of an intoxicated individual in June, 1983.From the date of injury plaintiff sporadically March, until worked *3 light-duty jobs, including sedentary position a with specifically access to a cot that was created for him police the chief of December, in 1984. pain increasingly Plaintiff’s back became severe, physician, and, on the advice of his Dr. Steven New- stopped working man, he on March 8, 1985. Plaintiff subsequently physician, was examined defendant’s Dr. John Barber, on March 14, 1985.Dr. Barber found no work limitations. report,
On the basis
Dr.
Barber’s
the chief of
police
plaintiff
April
mailed
letter,
a
dated
3, 1985,
indicating that he was to “return to
with
no limi-
report,
tations” and that
if he failed to
his “time
longer
charged
duty injury.”
[would] no
Rather
returning
plaintiff
petition
than
work,
filed a
for
compensation
worker’s
benefits.
The matter was heard before ruary April 1986.Medical 27, 1986, 21, physi- depositions presented from the of three May 26, was closed on cians,1and the record magistrate argued Defendant before the April 3, 1985,letter was a bona fide offer of reasona- employment ble and that benefits should be termi- plaintiff nated as of that date because had unreasona- bly accept April 21, 1986, refused to that offer.2 On Dansby Inspector and Police Chief Rechlin testified they plaintiff reg- never intended that return to a job that, ular without restriction. Chief Rechlin stated subject city job recommendation, doctor’s specially December, 1984, created for remained available. concluded that was dis- injury “arising
abled a as result of back out of and with the course of this defendant due injury of June 1983.He is unable to return to regular magis- work duties as a officer.” The trate further concluded that there was April 3,
no offer of favored work on 1985 and a reasonable regular of the refusal to return to duties at the work, they time. ... If the offers a of favored offered, make should it clear that such a is and not following paragraph include such an offer in a letter indi- cating released their doctor for unrestricted duties. *4 1 deposition Newman, Plaintiff offered the Dr. and defendant submit depositions
ted the of Dr. Barber and Dr. Lele.
2 See n 7. 333 Price v Westland concluded, however, also job that had been created for
was able to December, 1984, him in which “defense council [sic] February 27, had indicated on the record on job . . . Because the was still was available.” available,
plaintiff should have contacted the defendant to see about Compensation suspend will be this work. Worker’s benefits form that date based on the indication that the favored [sic] work was available. April 2, 1984,
Benefits were awarded from to Febru- ary 27, parties appealed magistrate’s 1986. Both decision to the WCAB.
In December, 1990, the wcab affirmed the magis- decision, trate’s but modified the decision termi- April 21, benefits on 1986. 1990 WCABO nating relying 1516. Rather than on defense counsel’s state- February 27, 1986, posi- ment on that a favored-work available, tion remained the wcab concluded that testimony Chief April 21, 1986, Rechlin’s on estab- lished a bona fide offer of reasonable The wcab noted: April 21, 1986, spe-
Chief Rechlin indicated that as of
previously existed, including
cial services
as it
cot-rest-
ing privileges,
plaintiff.
remained available to
While Dr.
Newman’s 1986
indicated that this
still could
performed
cot-resting
if
were
limited to minutes
daily,
per
history
early
experience,
as
his
of the
we
find that defendant then made bona fide offer of reasona-
reported
ble work. Plaintiff should have then
to defendant
attempt
duties,
to make a reasonable
those
as
they
by defendant,
light
were then offered
in the
of the
opinions from Drs. Lele and Barber. His failure to do so
*5
334
Plaintiff’s for leave to Appeals. appealed denied the Court of Plaintiff this Court and we remanded the case to the Court of Appeals granted.3 for consideration as on leave Appeals
The Court of affirmed on remand in an unpublished opinion per curiam, issued Decem (Docket ber No. and denied rehear 21, 150640), ing February again sought Plaintiff on leave 16, appeal Court, and we denied application on October 1994.4 Plaintiff filed a 25, granted motion reconsideration, for and we leave to appeal on June 23, 1995.5
n
inherently
The factual determinations
aof court are
attempts
reality
limited
to re-create
in order to
questions
relatively
answer
real-world
here,
—
straightforward
regarding
matter
whether
there was
specific job
plaintiff’s physical
within
limitations to
which he could have returned.
outset,
At the
we note
attempt
complicated
that in this case that
has been
by intransigence
abysmal
and frustrated
lack
of communication between
and defendant.
parties
Both
are to blame: defendant could have more
precisely
inviting
defined the
it was
just
easily
return to, could
as
have
employ-
returned to work to learn the nature of the
(1992).
yers.
vantage point,
enough
go
From this
there is
blame to
around and
decide,
that makes this a difficult case to
but decide we must. The dissent
highlights
strength
position,
defendant’s
but defendant’s refusal to
guarantee
placed
plaintiff destroys
that additional duties would not be
on
specificity necessary
Any ambiguity
to create a valid offer.
must be
prov
construed in favor of
because defendant has the burden of
ing
that it
amade bona fide offer of reasonable
See Kolenko
Products, Inc,
159, 162;
v United States Rubber
285 Mich
jobs
qualifications
training.
in work
to his or
suitable
her
[MCL
418.301(9);
17.237(301)(9).]
MSA
418.301(5);
17.237(301)(5)
entirety provides:
MCL
MSA
in its
supervisor February 27, 1986, April 21, 1986, that a on department plaintiff, was still available to the records subject city physician’s approval, competent evi- support dence in the record to the wcab’s conclusion that April 21, made an offer of favored work on [Slip op at 1.] made a fide offer of
Whether defendant
bona
favored work is
a factual issue.
generally
Findings
supported by any
fact
are conclusive if
WCAB
competent
6,
28;
evidence.
art
MCL
Const
§
418.861;
Marquette
MSA
Kostamo v
17.237(861);
Co,
105, 147;
Iron
ing finding
law
of fact on a
of
correctly apply
failing
finding
the law to the
of
Grey
Foundry,
fact.” Braxton v Chevrolet
Iron
(1976);
685, 692-693;
Mich
Nearly sixty years ago, a case Court addressed involving analogous Kolenko, facts to this case. In supra, injury, sustained a work-related voluntarily paid benefits. Eventu- the defendant ally petition the defendant filed a to terminate bene- cooperate contending failed to fits, accept employment refusing tendered defendant. The testified that she refused to return work because the defendant would not responsibilities explain what her appeal, Department this Court affirmed the be. On Industry’s Labor and conclusion that unspecified employment accept did not refusal to cooperation a lack that benefits illustrate such forfeited. should be *8 451 Mich Opinion of the Court obligation comply with the
Plaintiff was under no arbitrary demand of defendant that she unreasonable accept company thought suitable for whatever work (cid:127)her. at [Id. 162.] employer
When an seeks to fulfill its worker’s com- by pensation requirements offering disabled employee employment, reasonable it must inform the employee] worker of the “kind of work would be [the expected job.” do” and “the nature of the Id. at short, 161. In has a to know “what right of.” Id. at consistfs] case, Inspector Dansby In this both and Chief Rech- lin that, city policy, testified accordance with any police any before officer could return to work nature after a leave, medical the officer had to undergo city a medical examination doctor. requirement applied This all officers who were returning leave, after medical of whether a regardless injury work-related was involved.
Testimony Inspector Dansby of both and Chief however, beyond merely Rechlin, requiring went city doctor, Barber, Dr. could agree do the reasonable described at trial physi- within the limitations indicated cian, specific Dr. Newman. Plaintiff was not offered Newman, within the limitations described Dr. subject approval by city physician, but, rather, depend solely limitations on the plain- doctor’s recommendations. The exact nature of tiff’s duties would not be established until after the city doctor examined him. v Westland Price
After reviewing before the magis- *9 trate, the wcab specificity noted the lack of in the duties would be asked to undertake: type assigned of duties to which would be [T]he ultimately depended on the outcome of new examina- Barber, plaintiff reported tion Dr. if and when for work. WCABO [1990 1522-1523.]
If city doctor found limitation, plaintiff no work possibility faced the of returning duty.10 to normal In possibility, of this light we conclude that defendant Inspector Dansby by The cross-examination of Mr. Kadushin went as follows: you just job Q. I think stated before that the is [Mr. Kadushin]: being today, over, offered other words once this case is if he goes Station, job back to Westland Police there will be a there with lay necessary? a bed and he could down whenever he feels it’s That
job
open
being
today by
City
offered to him
of Westland?
authority
You
have
to make that offer?
[Inspector
depend
Dansby]:
reports.
A.
That would
on medical
city
We would send him to a
doctor.
Well, you’re saying
city
says
Q.
if the
doctor
he could do that
job,
job
that
him?
is available to
duties,
A. If the doctor decides that he could return to normal
he
go
would
back on the road.
city
Q. It’s the
that
doctor
decides that he could return to normal
job
duties? That
is not available to him?
along.
A. We never had that until Officer Price came
qualified
IQ. want to know what kind of
it
that is? Is
report?
based on some medical
qualified
report.
A. It would be
based on some medical
Dansby’s
Inspector
testimony
Chief Rechlin reinforced
description
depend
city
findings.
on the
doctor’s
Q.
If the
doctor said that he could return to
[Mr.Kadushin]-.
difficulty,
go
work without much
he could
back out on the road
again and not on a cot?
A.
Yes.
[Chief Rechlin]:
was not Newman, Dr. limitations described limitations appropria and the wcab concluded were 1 Thus, accept te.1 while we the wcab’s factual deter as a of law that minations, we conclude matter testimony legal defendant’s does not fulfill requirements of a bona fide offer.
Testimony plaintiff’s previous favored-work position was still “available” does not create a bona fide offer of reasonable in this case equivocal because the with respect whether would be allowed to return to that specific job. Although duties associated with this job were specificity, described with sufficient defend- ant refused to concede that would not be *10 required responsibili- to undertake more strenuous ties, repetitively but reinforced that all limitations might by city be removed the doctor.12 The fact that But, city Q. if he said that he could that or [the doctor] you anything, put him back on the road? possibility, my although mind, A. That’s a that never entered into
putting him back on the road. true, availability any though, given particular Q. Is it that the job concerned, as far as limitations and restrictions are as to one another, depends city says person extent to on what the doctor a can or cannot do? A. Yes. employer authority require employee has the the to visit a 418.385; 17.237(385). doctor. MCL MSA On the basis of the doctor’s con clusion, employer may specific job the then offer a tailored to the limi fit tations, thereof, imposed by examining or lack the doctor. agree specific job We with the dissent that a was described job city depending defendant noted that that was available on what the physician job concluded. The described delineated the minimum duties required testimony clearly indicates, would be to do. The trial however, city impose demanding doctor could less restrictions v Price Westland responsibilities associated with the knew job position does not mean that
favored-work acceptance. plaintiffs being See for offered Corp, 1989 WCACO Dixon General Motors the offer is defective because We do not decide that upon employment employer actual conditioned approval physician. a This case different employer an which invites from one in employment specific within the to return by upon approval contingent employee’s limitations, employee’s employer’s case, In doctor. or the definitively defendant did offer fails because physical specific employment limita- within the offer by tions found to exist WCAB. essentially offered Defendant cot-resting privi- ranging from unlimited with duties patrol responsibilities. leges to full job to a within defendant’s offer In an effort limit by Newman, Dr. described the limitations WCAB qualification engrafted recom- on the doctor’s supported defendant’s testi- that is not mendation mony. WCAB restricted defendant’s assigned plaintiff reinstating benefits if defendant demanding Dr. than that described more Newman. Dr. those within Newman’s
If other duties than prescribed he are for after is reexam- restrictions *11 compliance by with defendant’s ined Dr. Barber in employ- dispute demanding leading not duties. We do thus to more may department We do dis- been “available." with have ment pute sufficiently specific bona fide offer of reasona- there was a whether ble 329 Mich Dissenting Opinion Brickley, C.J. policy situations, announced such benefits are to be rein- stated. WCABO [1990 1525.] qualification solely
This was created wcab supported by is not the record.13 limitation, Absent this are however, we left awith situation which defendant invites to return work, announces that a within limita- available, tions is but then that, concedes depending on physician what defendant’s recommends, plaintiff’s employment may ultimate duties be far more demand- ing previously than those described. We conclude that such an invitation does not rise to speci- the level of ficity necessary to create a bona fide of offer reasona- employment ble may benefits terminated respond because failed to to such an offer. We reverse the decision the Court of Appeals and remand this case Compensation to the Worker’s Appellate Commission for further proceedings consis- with opinion. tent this and Mallett, JJ., concurred with
Levin, Cavanagh, J. Boyle, C.J. I (dissenting). Because believe that
Brickley, the defendant made bona fide reasonable plaintiff, I respectfully dissent. Although majority feels that duties were described with specificity, sufficient it finds the offer defective it because concludes that plaintiff might have been asked to more strenuous work. position change quali We take no on whether the result if supported by fication was phy the record and examination defendant’s truly formality sician imposed that could not remove the limitations by Dr. Newman. *12 v Westland 343 Price Dissenting Opinion by Brickley, C.J. plaintiff only job that was offered to the
Because the sufficiently physi- his both described within was Appeals uphold the Court limitations, I would cal suspend benefits. decision the evi- concluded that medical The plaintiff was the able to showed that dence testimony job specially of the created the they supervisors not that did demonstrated job. regular-duty a the intend return plain- indicate that the wcab found that the record did equivalent of rea- work,” “favored tiff offered failed to Because the sonable good-faith duties, his effort to his make supervisors’ suspended on the date the benefits were testimony offer was for the clarified that position. position, regular-duty restricted for any other duties than “[i]f The wcab also noted that prescribed within Dr. Newman’srestrictions are those is Dr. Barber in after he reexamined for compliance policy with announced defendant’s 1990 situations, benefits are to reinstated.” such 1515, WCABO Appeals
The Court of relied on specially was still available to created support “was for conclusion that there as its competent support evidence the record to wcab’s conclusion that made an offer per Unpublished opinion .” favored . . . (Docket curiam, December No. issued 150640). appeal this is asked to determine if On Court competent, and substantial evidence material, there findings. doing, supporting In so- the administrative MCL examines the whole record. the Court 17.237(861a)(3). 418.861a(3); MSA 451 Mich Dissenting Opinion by Brickley, C.J.
I majority concludes that “the duties associated specific- with this were described with sufficient ity . . . Ante at 340. Nevertheless, it holds that the definitively specific employ- “defendant did not physical ment within the limitations found to exist *13 magistrate the and WCAB.” Id. at 341. In order to reach majority beyond conclusion, the looks the actual job that was offered. Because the Court’s decision should be based on the facts below, established it rely should on the offer that the found, speculation engage rather than about what other jobs might have existed.
The Court must determine what constitutes an offer of reasonable The cites proposition two cases for the that the offer must suf- ficiently specific job. describe a In Kolenko v United States Rubber Products, Inc, 285 159; Mich 280 NW (1938), employer requested the defendant employee report factory, the to its where she would job. given employee a went to the defendant’s employment office and asked to be advised of what expected kind of work she would be to do. The permit defendant refused to tell her and would not attorneys factory her to enter the to ascertain what the work would be. The Court found that this did not constitute a bona fide offer:
The burden was on the defendant to show that it offered perform. work which she could . . . Plaintiff was obligation comply under no to with the unreasonable arbitrary accept demand of defendant that she whatever company thought work the suitable for her. Mich [285 162.] Price v Westland Dissenting Opinion Brickley, C.J. Corp, WCABO Motors In Maddox v General employee had not unrea- WCAB found that the the plain- sonably perform favored work. The refused to foundry assigned work as in a and was worked tiff assembly department, light “extra man” in the approxi- participate potentially could where he any seventy jobs given mately he was needed. On as employee day, one be asked to the could jobs. that this did constitute decision premised on two conclusions: bona fide was consistently attempted his duties, injury, and, because of his was unable continue but specific majority, “there no [was] cited as return, but restricted which unspecified only grouping at of them.” Id. a[n] by majority did cited In neither the cases job. employee know attendant to the In the duties employee employer case, the refused tell one job, anything other at all about the and in the among assigned to rotate needed as *14 jobs. Although recognize large I that these number employer an had failed to were situations in which distinguish would offer, make a bona fide I these dispute. from the Unlike Kolenkó and cases instant employer does not involve an who Maddox, case provide description job an or refused jobs. assigned to rotate between several dozen The already plaintiff him, had at the offered to worked scope. its he cannot claim he did not understand so unspeci- requested among Nor had he been rotate majority jobs. concludes that However, fied the still possibility was not because of the the offer sufficient plaintiff assigned would be additional that the responsibilities. 451 Mich Dissenting Opinion by Brickley, C.J. majority states that its is not holding based on
the medical-examination requirement, appar- and it ently would difficulty have no with a situation in which the contents of a after and changed on the basis of the results of the examination. I am unable distinguish between that situation and the possibility, contemplated majority the in the case, instant per- be asked to form different work with requirements. unknown majority concludes “plaintiffs ultimate may duties be far more demanding than previously those described.” Ante at 342. This conclu- only sion can speculation based on if that, the defendant’s doctor had found that could restrictions, without might have been assigned to a regular-duty job, and therefore had not received an offer specific job of a with suffi- ciently detailed duties. I dissent because I disagree with that inference.
First, I do not believe that the case law states that possibility mere of additional destroys duties otherwise sufficient offer of reasonable As stated above, the instant case is distinguishable on its facts from the cases cited majority where offers were insufficiently specific. Here, the offer was specific. In fact, was familiar with all the responsibilities that he might be called on perform, since previously he had worked both a regular-duty job and a regular job. desk Moreover, employ- ment was with department and not at a factory where he could upon be called large jobs. number of I admit that there was a slight possibility that the plaintiff would be offered other work that he had not previously performed. However, *15 Price Westland Dissenting Opinion Brickley, C.J. comparable in which is not to situations this scenario unspeci- consisting of was offered work offer was suf- Rather, duties. here the defendant’s fied ficiently specific regarding potential job other requirement. specifically possibil-
Second, the WCAB excluded the ity plaintiff perform a dif- that the could be asked to job regardless medical of the results of the ferent majority police super- notes, As the examination. they magistrate that visors testified before the never regular, return to a unrestricted intended job. although cross-examination, Even on Id. at 332. admitting might that the that the doctor conclude restrictions, could work without my mind, chief testified that “that never entered into putting him back on the road.” The WCAB reflected this finding holding in reinstated if that benefits be assigned to additional duties. The the majority were qualification, but concludes that it
Dissenting
by
Opinion
C.J.
Brickley,
by
supported
whole,
other duties is
the record as a
necessary
accurately
and in fact is
to
reflect the facts
qualifica-
the
as established
the record. Without
required
perform
might
tion, the
be
to
by magistrate,
outside the boundaries established
the
magis-
which would constitute
failure to follow the
qualification
finding.
trate’s medical fact
should
upheld.
n
Because I conclude that there was a bona fide offer
employment,
question
of reasonable
I reach the
whether the
was reasonable in his refusal to
accept the offer. In Pulver v
Co,
Dundee Cement
(1994),
68;
Mich
This result is the cases cited majority. employ- Both Kolenko and Maddox involved diligence attempting ees who demonstrated in return to work. The Kolenko Court found that Price Westland Opinion by Dissenting Brickley, C.J.
[p]laintiff regard in her attitude and conduct with proposed job clearly appears good to have been actuated only cooperation appears faith. . . . The lack of from part in is on the of defendant. the record this case [285 Mich 162.]
Similarly, employee Maddox, attempted offered, the work but was una- holdings ble to continue. The in these cases were partly employees’ based at least on the demonstrated diligence attempting good faith and to work. Appeals requires The Court of also attempt at least reasonable *17 employer offering has met once the employment. its burden that Eaton,
In Christiansen v Yale& Towne, App (1978), Inc, 440, 444; 89 Mich 280 NW2d463 Court held: plaintiff that board’s statement had the “burden of
attempting perform to same” is not wdth inconsistent jobs case law. Plaintiff refused to even examine offered. light In of this total refusal it cannot be said faith, good acted in as was found to be the fact Kolenko ....
The same conclusion was reached in Parmeter v
Rapids
App
Grand
Public Schools,
97, 102;
168 Mich
(1987).
Dissenting Opinion by Brickley, C.J.
m Appeals I conclude that the WCAB and Court of were concluding demonstrated correct in that the evidence a bona fide offer of reasona- that the defendant made ble attempt failing
refused that Accordingly, I affirm work. the Court of Appeals suspend plaintiffs decision benefits. JJ., concurred with C.J.
Riley
Weaver,
Brickley,
notes
supported by
is not
the record. Id. at 341-342.
qualification supported
The wcab’s
the record.
magistrate concluded,
on the basis of the medical
spe-
evidence,
could
that the
cially
job.
that the
created
She also concluded
was described
detail sufficient to constitute bona
fide offer of reasonable
The wcab
fol-
qualification
findings
imposing
lowed those
required
plaintiff could not
to do other
responsibilities would not
work. Additional
necessa-
rily
magis-
fall within the medical limitations that the
finding
Also,
trate found to exist.
that an offer
only
special job, not to
had been made referred
Thus,
other duties.
the wcab’s decision to reinstate the
required
benefits if he were