Kenneth Howell v. Wilson Masonry, (Supreme Court – C.A. No. S13A-02-003 – decided 3/7/14)

Substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that claimant was not a displaced worker because his job search was not successful for reasons unrelated to his work injury.

The claimant had sustained a compensable injury in 2009 and was receiving compensation for temporary total disability. Later, the employer filed a petition to terminate benefits, alleging the claimant was no longer disabled. Evidence included testimony from medical experts for each party showing that, while the claimant still had significant injuries and was suffering from pain, he was capable of performing sedentary work, even according to his own treating physician. The Board granted the termination petition and found that the claimant was only partially disabled, and based on the vocational evidence, the Board reduced the claimant’s compensation to the partial disability rate of $5.00 per week.

On appeal, the claimant argued that the lower court had erred in finding that he was not a displaced worker who could not obtain employment. The court noted that the concept of displaced worker refers to one who, while not completely incapacitated for work, is so handicapped by the compensable work injury that he or she will no longer be employed regularly in any well known branch of the competitive labor market, essentially requiring a specially created job if he or she is to be steadily employed at all. The court concluded that the claimant was not a displaced worker, either in the form of being prima facie displaced or actually displaced. The court’s reasoning was that the claimant was not so limited by his physical restrictions, age, education or otherwise to be prima facie displaced. In addition, the claimant did not produce any evidence that he was unsuccessful in securing employment as a result of his work injury. Rather, the evidence showed that the claimant’s limited attempts in obtaining employment were unsuccessful but were not due to his work-related physical injuries. Accordingly, the decision below was affirmed.

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2014