Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): lifting more than twenty pounds, any kneeling or crawling, and standing for periods of time greater than fifteen minutes. Dr. Jochims opined that Burress’ disability “virtually eliminated any type of standing job or walking job.” Burress testified that he did not believe he could return to work at any of his prior jobs because of his physical restrictions. He also testified that it was painful for him to sit for any extended period of time. Burress explained that he might try to open a small engine repair business with the help of Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services, but also testified to the difficulties of successfully opening such a shop. We have previously held similar evidence provides substantial evidence of a permanent total disability. See Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d at 635 (<HOLDING>); see also Dailey v. Pooley Lumber Co., 233 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when the claimant has established that his impairment prevents him from returning to his previous employment the burden shifts to the commissioner who must produce evidence to show the existence of alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy and which the claimant could perform considering not only his physical and mental capability but also his age education experience and training (B) holding that claimant may simultaneously receive unemployment benefits and workers compensation for temporary partial disability where statute only precludes receipt of workers compensation for temporary total or permanent total disability if claimant is receiving unemployment benefits (C) holding substantial evidence supported permanent total disability where commissioner relied on prior work experience as welder and physical laborer and inability to perform such work in the future ninthgrade level of functioning and doctor testimony that claimant was virtually unemployable (D) holding claimant suffered permanent total disability where functional disability was only twentyfive or thirty percent claimant was fiftynine years of age claimant had little or no education and the injury kept the claimant from performing physical work (E) holding that a totally disabled claimant whose preexisting osteoarthritis was temporarily aggravated by her employment was entitled to temporary total disability benefits but not permanent total disability benefits because there was no causal connection between the temporary aggravation and the permanent disability
Output (English): holding claimant suffered permanent total disability where functional disability was only twentyfive or thirty percent claimant was fiftynine years of age claimant had little or no education and the injury kept the claimant from performing physical work