Opinion ID: 1184458
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was The Board's Decision Contrary To Law?

Text: The dispute upon appeal centers primarily about the Board's third finding of fact, which appears to be the basis for the Board's dismissal of Grace Vetter's claim for disability compensation. The Board found: That the applicant did not suffer disability from work as a result of injury on April 24, 1970. She was able to continue working for the remaining five to six hours of her shift and did not find need to see the doctor until the afternoon of a [sic] day when she was hurt at 2 a.m. The Board believes that applicant does not want to work and that her husband, who did not want her to work before the injury, probably keeps her from working now. We believe the fact that she gives a previous earning history of minimal employment during the three years previous to injury is indicative of this. This finding is followed by the dismissal of the claim for compensation for disability. Appellant's claim could not be dismissed merely because she did not go immediately to a doctor. [2] However, the second portion of the finding introduced another ground for dismissal. The Board found that Grace Vetter did not want to work and supported this finding by reference to her husband's attitude toward her employment [3] and her previous sporadic working history. [4] A dismissal for this reason has a proper foundation in the law. The concept of disability compensation rests on the premise that the primary consideration is not medical impairment as such, but rather loss of earning capacity related to that impairment. An award for compensation must be supported by a finding that the claimant suffered a compensable disability or, more precisely, a decrease in earning capacity due to a work-connected injury or illness. [5] Factors to be considered in making this finding include not only the extent of the injury, but also age, education, employment available in the area for persons with the capabilities in question, and intentions as to employment in the future. [6] The aim is to make the best possible estimate of future impairment of earnings considering any available clues: ... the purpose of the wage calculation is not to arrive at some theoretical concept of loss of earning capacity; rather it is to make a realistic judgment on what the claimant's future loss is in the light of all the factors that are known. [7] If a claimant, through voluntary conduct unconnected with his injury, takes himself out of the labor market, there is no compensable disability. If an employee, after injury, resumes employment and is fired for misconduct, his impairment playing no part in the discharge, there is no compensable disability. [8] Total disability benefits have been denied when a partially disabled claimant has made no bona fide effort to obtain suitable work when such work is available. [9] And, a claimant has been held not entitled to temporary total disability benefits even though she had a compensable injury when she had terminated her employment because of pregnancy and thereafter underwent surgery for the injury. Since the compensable injury was not the reason she was no longer working, temporary disability benefits for current wage losses were denied. [10] The Board in the instant case determined that Grace Vetter was no longer employed, not because of any injury but because of her own personal desires, and found no actual impairment of her earning capacity. If this determination is supported by substantial evidence, the claim for compensation was correctly denied.