have allowed concurrent PTD and PPD payments. Magness Constr. Co. v. Waller, 269 A.2d 554, 556 (Del.1970); Cuarisma v. Urban Painters, Ltd., 59 Haw. 409, 583 P.2d 321, 324-28 (1978); Buechler v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 222 N.W.2d 858, 862 (N.D.1974); State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm’n of Ohio, 62 Ohio St.2d 147, 404 N.E.2d 141, 143 (1980). Others reach the opposite result. Korineck v. General Dynamics Corp., Elec. Boat Div., 835 F.2d 42, 43 (2d Cir.1987) (applying federal Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) ); Grimshaw v. L. Peter Larson Co., 213 Mont. 291, 691 P.2d 805, 806-09 (1984) (applying statutory bar against multiple benefit categories); Varela v. Arizona Pub. Serv., 109 N.M. 306, 784 P.2d 1049, 1051-52 (App.1989) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 262, 784 P.2d 1005
holding that the worker was entitled to full ttd benefits because the employer never made an offer of employment once the worker was released to work holding the united states to the most exacting fiduciary standards holding worker who meets standards for both ppd and ptd entitled only to benefits under the section providing the most holding that social worker was not entitled to absolute immunity for filing complaint becausejudicial proceedings were initiated by district attorney who filed petition for adjudication holding that when state educational benefits exceed minimum federal standards the state standards are enforceable through the idea