Eidem worked as a nurse’s aid at Gnaden-Huetten Memorial Hospital until she injured her right shoulder and elbow in a work-related injury on July 11, 1992. The hospital issued a notice of compensation payable awarding her benefits.



The hospital’s insurer requested an exam by its medical expert, Dr. Richard Bruno, one year later. Bruno determined that Eidem could perform light-duty work with certain restrictions on her physical performance.



Eidem’s physician, on the other hand, opined that the claimant could not return to light-duty work since she was permanently injured and her medical condition had reached its maximum level of improvement.



Basing its actions on Bruno’s opinion, the hospital sent Eidem a letter, dated March 5, 1993, informing her that she was able to return to light-duty employment and that a temporary position was waiting for her.



The letter also listed Eidem’s physical restrictions and outlined the hours per day and days per week that she was expected to work and the rate of pay she was to receive. The letter directed Eidem to contact the hospital’s director of nursing to arrange a work schedule, but Eidem, relying on her doctor’s advice, chose not to respond.



In December, the hospital’s insurer filed a petition to modify Eidem’s benefits because she had been offered employment within her medical restrictions.



A workers’ compensation judge credited the hospital’s testimony and granted its petition to modify. The WCAB affirmed.



The Commonwealth Court reversed the WCAB’s decision on the basis that the letter did not contain any description of the offered job.



Job Description

On appeal to the high court, the hospital argued that the position it offered to Eidem was available under Kachinski v. WCAB, 532 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1987). Although the letter did contain a specific job description, Eidem could have deduced what the job might be from “all of the surrounding circumstances,” the hospital argued.



Eidem responded that without a concrete job description, she did not have enough information to “make an informed choice about employment,” the opinion said.



“According to [Eidem], an informed choice includes sufficient information for the claimant to evaluate whether the duties fall within her physical restrictions,” Cappy said.



Eidem also asserted that she did not have enough data to make a choice about employment because she had not worked in a “temporary position” with the hospital in the past.



Cappy detailed the requirements for a modification of benefits under Kachinski:



* There is a change in condition.



* The employer has referred the claimant to an available job that fits the claimant’s physical and occupational requirements.



* Once the employer has met these two requirements, the claimant must demonstrate a good faith effort to follow through on the referral.



* If, despite the claimant’s good faith effort, the referral does not lead to employment, benefits must continue.



The only relevant question in Eidem’s case, Cappy said, was whether the letter referred her to an available position.



In order to satisfy the second Kachinski prong, an employer needs only to inform the claimant that a job is available. The employer does not need to detail every aspect of the job, Cappy said.



Cappy said the Commonwealth Court has developed two lines of reasoning for determining whether a referral letter provides sufficient information.



If the employer is offering an alternate position, a job with which the employee has no previous experience, the employer must offer enough information about the job requirements for the employee to be able to ascertain whether he or she is capable.



But when an employer offers a claimant a light-duty position in a capacity in which he or she has already worked, no such details are necessary, Cappy said.



“Although these two lines of cases appear to be divergent, it is clear that they require the employer to provide essentially the same information regarding a job position in order for it to be considered actually available,” Cappy wrote.



“First, the claimant must be reasonably apprised of the job duties and classification, either through prior work experience or through expressly delineating these factors in the letter. Second, the claimant must be given sufficient information in order to determine whether the available position is within her physical restrictions.”



In Eidem’s case, the only job she had ever performed with the hospital was as a nurse’s aid, Cappy said, and the referral letter told her to contact the director of nursing.



“Based upon these facts, [Eidem] could reasonably assume that she was being offered her prior position as a nurse’s aid,” he said. “In addition, [Eidem] was fully apprised of the job requirements related to that position as she had previously worked in that position.”