Ford Motor Company v. William K. Favinger

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judge Humphreys, Senior Judges Hodges and Overton
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 0112-05-1 	JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
OCTOBER 11, 2005
WILLIAM K. FAVINGER
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Barry Dorans (Samuel W. Meekins, Jr.; Wolcott, Rivers, Gates, P.C.,
on briefs), for appellant.
(Gregory E. Camden; Montagna Klein Camden, LLP, on brief), for
appellee.
Ford Motor Company (employer) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission awarding William K. Favinger (claimant) temporary partial disability (TPD)
benefits during certain periods of wage loss. Employer contends the commission erred in
(1) awarding claimant TPD benefits for lost overtime where claimant failed to prove any wage
loss causally related to his compensable injury; (2) not addressing the issue of claimant’s failure
to market his residual work capacity in order to recoup the lost overtime; and (3) calculating
claimant’s TPD benefits based upon the actual weekly wages claimant earned during certain
weeks after his compensable injury as opposed to the average weekly wages claimant was able to
earn post-injury. Pursuant to Rule 5A:21(b), claimant raises the additional question of whether
the commission erred in denying him TPD benefits while he was on work restrictions due to his
compensable injury and laid off by employer during two temporary plant-wide shutdowns.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
Our review of the record indicates that the commission, upon review of the deputy
commissioner’s decision, failed to address the question raised by employer as to whether
claimant adequately marketed his residual work capacity in order to recoup his lost overtime.
Accordingly, we remand this matter to the commission for it to determine whether claimant
adequately marketed his residual work capacity in order to recoup his lost overtime. Because we
remand for a determination of that question, we do not address the additional assignments of
error raised by employer and claimant.
Remanded.