Opinion ID: 1349673
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Haske v. Transport Leasing

Text: Plaintiff Andrew Haske worked for defendant Transport Leasing as a tractor-trailer driver. On May 18, 1987, he was injured in the course of his employment when his truck tipped over. He suffered injuries to his left arm and leg, and to his neck, which prevented him from engaging in heavy lifting. Haske did not return to Transport Leasing because he was unable to perform the heavy lifting associated with the job. On January 27, 1988, Haske began working for Woodlands Harvesting, driving a truck and hauling woodchips, gravel, and rocks. However, he had to stop working in early October, 1988 because the job also required heavy lifting that was too difficult for him as a result of his injury. On October 10, 1988, he began working for Enterprise Leasing as a road driver. He said this job was easy and that his injury did not prevent him from performing it effectively. In fiscal 1990, he earned approximately $10,500 at this job. His average weekly wage at Transport Leasing had been $596.75 a week, or approximately $31,045 a year, and he had earned $377.99 a week with Woodlands Harvesting, or approximately $19,760 a year. Haske filed a claim for worker's compensation in December, 1987. In the opinion dated October 28, 1991, the magistrate granted him an open award of $239.46 in weekly payments of worker's compensation as a partial disability payment. By an amended order, the magistrate increased this payment by $117.63 a week. The magistrate found that Haske was totally disabled from the time of his injury, May 18, 1987, until he found work with Woodlands Harvesting on January 27, 1988, and thereafter that he was partially disabled. Transport Leasing appealed to the WCAC. In a two to one decision, the WCAC reversed the grant of worker's compensation payments, except for the payments he received for the time he was totally disabled: [W]e believe that the Magistrate improperly focused on plaintiff's physical limitations as opposed to the limitations on his wage-earning capacity. M.C.L.  418.301(4) [M.S.A.  17.237(301)(4) ]. The relevant inquiry is whether plaintiff has the ability to work at any other type of job by virtue of his qualifications and training. A physical limitation is not the equivalent of a limitation of an employee's wage-earning capacity, because wage-earning capacity is not necessarily defined by physical ability alone. [1993 Mich. ACO 1300, 1302.] Thus, the WCAC found that Haske had not suffered a loss of wage-earning capacity because he [was] still able to perform work within his qualifications and training as evidenced by his subsequent employments. Id.