Opinion ID: 1914790
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was Chubb a Prima Facie Displaced Worker?

Text: Chubb alternatively claims that he was entitled to benefits as a prima facie displaced worker. [14] An employee who is only partially disabled physically can nevertheless be totally disabled economically, i.e., displaced from employment. [15] A claimant can establish displacement by either a prima facie showing or by showing reasonable efforts to secure suitable employment which have been unsuccessful because of the injury. [16] It is undisputed that Chubb made no efforts to secure employment after losing his job with the State in 2004. Therefore, he is entitled to refile with the Board for benefits after making those efforts. He argues, nonetheless, that he satisfied his burden of showing that he is a prima facie displaced worker. A displaced worker is a worker who, while not completely incapacitated for work, is so handicapped by a compensable injury that he will no longer be employed regularly in any well known branch of the competitive labor market and will require a specially-created job if he is to be steadily employed. [17] The worker can establish a prima facie case if he has obvious physical impairment, coupled with other factors such as the injured employee's mental capacity, education, training, or age. [18] The Board held that because Chubb based his petition on an allegation of recurrence, the proper inquiry was whether any of these factors worsened or changed since May 2004. Chubb need not show a change in his physical impairment to show that he is economically displaced. [19] The Board found that Chubb's work restrictions, intelligence, education, and training remained unchanged since the agreed upon termination date. The Board noted that Chubb's age, 73, would normally weigh in favor of finding displacement, but in this instance, there was no meaningful difference between Chubb's age at the time of the accident and his current age. Finally, the State's refusal to rehire the injured employee is another factor, which, although not dispositive, may weigh heavily in the analysis. [20] Here, the Board noted that Chubb's termination after the work related accident was insufficient to prove that no other jobs would be available to [Chubb] in the competitive labor market. In determining if Chubb was a prima facie displaced worker, no one factor is necessarily decisive. [21] There was substantial evidence for the Board to conclude that Chubb did not present a prima facie case that he was a displaced worker. We recognize that the Board only considered whether Chubb presented a prima facie case that he was a displaced worker. The Board noted that Chubb did not try to find another job. Hence, Chubb is not without recourse. He can file again and prove that he is a displaced worker by evidence of reasonable efforts to secure suitable employment which have been unsuccessful because of the injury. [22]