Opinion ID: 1730892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: vocational rehabilitation benefits

Text: Vocational rehabilitation benefits are properly awarded when an injured employee is unable to return to the work for which he or she has previous training or experience. [27] Whether an injured worker is entitled to vocational rehabilitation is ordinarily a question of fact to be determined by the Workers' Compensation Court. [28] Stacy contends that despite the available job at Bridgeport Tractor, he should have been awarded vocational rehabilitation benefits. But both of the vocational rehabilitation specialists whose opinions were presented to the single judge opined that because of the Bridgeport Tractor job, vocational rehabilitation services were not warranted. [29] And more importantly, Stacy's argument is inconsistent with the priorities that the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act directs the Workers' Compensation Court to use in developing and evaluating a vocational rehabilitation plan. Those priorities are, listed in order from lower to higher priority: (a) Return to the previous job with the same employer; (b) Modification of the previous job with the same employer; (c) A new job with the same employer; (d) A job with a new employer; or (e) A period of formal training which is designed to lead to employment in another career field. [30] No higher priority may be utilized unless all lower priorities have been determined by the vocational rehabilitation counselor and a vocational rehabilitation specialist or judge of the compensation court to be unlikely to result in suitable employment for the injured employee that is consistent with the priorities listed. [31] Stacy is seeking vocational rehabilitation training that could lead him to employment in another career field. The record demonstrates that Stacy is unable to perform his previous job with Bridgeport Tractor, even if it were modified. But the record also demonstrates that a new job at Bridgeport Tractor is available to Stacy. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Bridgeport Tractor's offer of employment is insincere. And the training Stacy seeks is not available, pursuant to § 48-162.01(3), unless [a] new job with the same employer is unlikely to result in suitable employment for the injured employee. [32] Stacy's frustration with his employment opportunities and medical condition is apparent from the record, and completely understandable. But it is clear from the medical evidence that no amount of vocational rehabilitation can enable Stacy to perform the kind of work he enjoyed before his accident. And while the job available at Bridgeport Tractor may not seem ideal, Stacy is physically capable of performing it, and the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act establishes priorities for postinjury employment that neither this court nor the Workers' Compensation Court are at liberty to ignore. When the requirements of § 48-162.01(3) are considered, the record supports the single judge's finding that because a new job with Bridgeport Tractor was available to Stacy, further vocational rehabilitation services were not warranted. Stacy's fourth assignment of error is without merit.