California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Hallmark Mktg. Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., C077512 (Cal. App. 2015):
We recognize that the distinction between temporary disability (wage loss) and permanent disability (permanent impairment) is well established. (Appleby v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 184, 194.) Nevertheless, we find the "odd lot" rule works well in allocating the burden of proof in the 100% permanent disability context of work restrictions that limit an injured employee to at-home-only work. This is because such an employee generally finds herself in an even "odder lot" in the labor market than the injured employee in the temporary disability context (the context in which the "odd lot" rule was developed). Consequently, once an injured employee has shown that her injury was industrially caused and that she can work only from home in work that is not generally available, the burden shifts to the employer to establish the
Page 10
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.