Opinion ID: 430492
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to account for petitioner's uncertain future position in the labor market.

Text: 30 In vacating the ALJ's decision and order, and remanding this matter for further proceedings, we recognize the onerous burden placed upon the ALJ by the Act. The Act requires omniscience. The ALJ must divine whether the claimant will suffer any injury-related reduction in wage-earning capacity at any time during his lifetime. Often, as in this case, the ALJ will be asked to make this determination at a time when the existence and degree of any reduction in earning capacity is not evidenced by a tangible reduction in current wages paid. This is particularly the case in unionized industries. In vacating the decisions of the ALJ and the Board, we express no opinion on the proper outcome of this case on remand. We merely hold that when confronted with a case of admitted work-related medical disability and uncontroverted evidence indicating a reduction in a claimant's ability to perform at his pre-injury level, an ALJ must consider and make explicit findings on all relevant factors in the wage-earning capacity formula, and may issue a decision in opposition to uncontroverted evidence on the record only after expressly providing good reasons for rejecting that evidence. 31 We have noted that the Act requires compensation for any reduction in wage-earning capacity, not just reduction over a specified, or significant, threshold amount. However, as the question of disability is one of degree, so is the amount of recovery. The ALJ is directed by the Act not only to determine the existence of a disability, but also to determine the extent of that disability and to specify the amount of recovery needed to make the claimant whole. Unfortunately, disability is not so easily measured, particularly at the time the claim is filed. Often there may be substantial evidence to support a determination that the claimant has suffered, or will suffer, some injury-related economic harm, but there may be insufficient evidence to allow the ALJ to make a reasonable assessment of the precise degree of that harm. In such circumstances, we adopt the approach of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Hole v. Miami Shipyards Corp., supra, 640 F.2d 769. 32 In Hole the Fifth Circuit reversed a decision of the Benefits Review Board and reinstated a decision and order of the ALJ. The ALJ, finding that the precise degree of impairment of [the claimant's] earning capacity could not be determined at the time the claim was filed, id. at 771, 12 awarded a claimant compensation for a one percent permanent partial disability. Noting concern for the Act's short statute of limitations, id. at 773, the ALJ arrived at the one percent figure in order to 'keep[ ] the case alive for purposes of sensible modification of the Order if and when demonstrable change occurs in [the claimant's] earning power.'  Id. at 771 (citation omitted). The Board reversed the ALJ's award as speculative and impermissibly influenced by his concern for the short statute of limitations. Id. at 773. The Fifth Circuit reinstated the ALJ's decision and held that the de minimis award was an appropriate response to uncertainty over the degree of reduction in wage-earning capacity. Id. The court recognized that: 33 [I]t will often be impossible at the time a claim is filed to determine the precise degree of economic harm suffered by a claimant. Therefore, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 922 provides that an award of compensation may be modified at any time within one year after the last payment of compensation.    Thus, if an initial determination is made that a claimant has suffered some degree of economic harm, however slight, and circumstances later develop indicating that the claimant was harmed to a greater or lesser degree than was originally apparent, the compensation award may be modified years later to reflect this greater or lesser economic injury. 34 An initial finding of no economic disability, however, may only be modified within one year of such finding, even though subsequent events make it apparent that the claimant has suffered severe economic harm.    35 Id. at 772. When it is clear that a claimant has suffered a medical disability and there is a significant possibility that the claimant will at some future time suffer economic harm as a result of his injury, but present circumstances make the extent of the economic injury unknowable, the beneficent purposes of the Act and the mandate that due concern be given to the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 908(h), are furthered by granting [a] small award, fashioned expressly for the purpose of preserving [a] [c]laimant's right to receive compensation should disability in an economic sense ever visit him. Hole v. Miami Shipyards Corp., supra, 640 F.2d at 773. We leave the determination of whether there is sufficient uncertainty concerning the extent, if any, of petitioner's economic harm to warrant such a de minimis award in this case to the ALJ in the first instance.