Opinion ID: 1948815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Work Search

Text: [¶ 15] Whether an injured employee receives total or partial incapacity benefits depends on the extent to which that employee retains the ability to earn income after a work injury. 39-A M.R.S. §§ 212, 213, 214 (2007). The employee's post-injury earning capacity is based on both (1) the employee's physical capacity to earn wages, and (2) the availability of work within the employee's physical limitations. Morse v. Fleet Fin. Group, 2001 ME 142, ¶ 5, 782 A.2d 769, 771. [¶ 16] An employee who retains some ability to earn may be entitled to receive the full amount of workers' compensation benefits, with no deduction for earning capacity (100% partial incapacity benefits), pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 213, based on the combination of a partially incapacitating work injury and the loss of employment opportunities that are attributable to that injury. Monaghan v. Jordan's Meats, 2007 ME 100, ¶ 13, 928 A.2d 786, 791. In order to obtain the 100% benefit, the employee must demonstrate, pursuant to the work search rule, that work is unavailable within the employee's local community as a result of the work injury. Id. The work search rule is designed to allocate the order and presentation of proof related to the availability of work. Id. ¶ 14, 928 A.2d at 791. When the employee is the petitioning party, as in this case, the employee has the burden of proof to show that work is unavailable as a result of the work injury within the employee's local community. Id. [¶ 17] The issue of adequacy of a work search is a mixed question of fact and law. Morse, 2001 ME 142, ¶ 12, 782 A.2d at 773. Findings regarding the actual efforts made by the employee to obtain work are factual. Theriault v. Walsh Constr. Co., 389 A.2d 317, 320 (Me.1978). The evaluation of the reasonableness of those efforts is a mixed question requiring us to examine the reasonableness and legality of the hearing officer's ultimate conclusion. Id. [¶ 18] We have described an adequate work search as follows: [Work search] evidence should disclose that the worker made a reasonable exploration of the labor market in his community for the kind of work he has regained some ability to perform and that he was unable to obtain such work for remuneration either because no stable market for it existed or, if there was such a market, the work was not available to him by reason of the continuing limitations, caused by his work-related injury, upon his ability to perform it. Monaghan, 2007 ME 100, ¶ 17, 928 A.2d at 792 (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting Ibbitson v. Sheridan Corp., 422 A.2d 1005, 1009 (Me.1980)). Further, work search evidence should: give a rational person reasonable cause to believe that the work-related injury this particular worker sustained is preventing him from obtaining remunerative work ordinarily available in the competitive labor market of his community. Such reasonable cause will arise where the worker's exploration of the labor market in his community discloses a number of search experiences manifesting a pattern, ... from which it becomes reasonable to infer either that a stable market for the kind of work the worker has regained some ability to perform does not exist in his community, or, if such a market does exist, that work will not be made available to this particular worker because of the persisting effects of the work-related injury he sustained. Id. (ellipsis in original) (quoting Ibbitson, 422 A.2d at 1011). [¶ 19] In Monaghan, we listed nine nonexclusive factors that hearing officers should consider when determining whether the employee has met the burden of proof of unavailability of work with evidence from a work search: (1) The number of inquiries made or applications submitted by an employee. (2) Whether the search was undertaken in good faith. (3) Whether the search was too restrictive. (4) Whether the search was limited solely to employers who were not advertising available positions, or whether the employee also made appropriate use of classified ads or other employment resources in the search. (5) Whether the search was targeted to work that the employee is capable of performing. (6) Whether the employee over-emphasized work restrictions when applying for jobs. (7) Whether the employee engaged in other efforts to find employment or increase prospects for employment. (8) The employee's personal characteristics such as age, training, education, and work history. (9) The size of the job market in the employee's geographic area. Monaghan, 2007 ME 100, ¶ 21, 928 A.2d at 793 (citations omitted). [¶ 20] These factors were stated: in order to clarify that the hearing officer's task is not to focus on any single aspect of the employee's efforts, but to view the evidence through a broad lens to determine whether the employee's efforts demonstrate that she was unable to find work because (1) no stable market for the kind of work she is able to perform exists in the local community; or (2) if there is such a market, that work is unavailable to the employee due to the persisting effects of the work-related injury. Id. ¶ 22, 928 A.2d at 793-94. [¶ 21] Here, the hearing officer complimented the scope and persistence of Avramovic's work search. However, the hearing officer found that Avramovic had failed to demonstrate that, considering his skills and work restrictions, work was unavailable to Avramovic in his local community because: Mr. Avramovic has focused his efforts almost exclusively on positions within the fields of accounting, bookkeeping and financial services. But he has a breadth of education and work experience and a variety of skills and is capable of performing a fairly wide range of jobs within his work restrictions, including jobs in many fields other than those he has targeted. [¶ 22] Because Avramovic did not specifically request further findings regarding the work search, we will infer that the hearing officer found all the facts necessary to support his decision, and we will inquire if such inferred findings are supported by the record. See Maietta v. Town of Scarborough., 2004 ME 97, ¶ 17, 854 A.2d 223, 227. [¶ 23] Even judged by this standard, however, the hearing officer's findings on the adequacy of the work search are inconsistent to such an extent that they do not permit a reasoned appellate review. The hearing officer complimented the scope and persistence of Avramovic's work search, yet found that it was insufficient because Avramovic focused almost exclusively within the accounting and financial area in which Avramovic had been educated. The record here, however, reflects that the work search included approximately fifty jobs that Avramovic might be medically qualified to perform outside the accounting and financial area. [¶ 24] When the hearing officer relies exclusively on one factor in rejecting a work search, and that factor appears to substantially lack support in the record, we cannot engage in meaningful appellate review. [¶ 25] Other opinions in which we have determined that a work search was insufficiently broad involve work searches far narrower than the one conducted by Avramovic. See Cote v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Me., Inc., 432 A.2d 1301, 1305 (Me.1981) (four inquiries all in the nursing field); Drew v. Gen. Elec. Co., 429 A.2d 533, 533 (Me.1981) (employee looked for work only with his work-injury employer); Harrington v. Goodwin's Chevrolet, Inc., 400 A.2d 358, 360-61 (Me.1979) (two inquiries in area where employee not licensed); Wadleigh v. Higgins, 399 A.2d 871, 873 (Me. 1979) (seven applications, all for physically demanding jobs). [¶ 26] The hearing officer erred as a matter of law by relying on a single aspect of the search, the asserted limited scope of the search, when the record does not support the finding that the work search had an unreasonably limited scope. Accordingly, we remand to the hearing officer for reconsideration of the work search issue in light of all the factors stated in Monaghan. [2] The entry is: Decision of the hearing officer vacated in part and remanded for reconsideration in light of this opinion.