Opinion ID: 1761189
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Employer's burden of proof

Text: Even assuming that Seal met his burden of proof, the majority erred in concluding that Gaylord did not meet its burden of proving that work was available to the plaintiff at the Gaylord facility. Seal's own testimony shows that he was able to work in other parts of the mill. The following exchange took place between Gaylord's attorney and Seal at Seal's worker's compensation hearing: Q. Has Dr. Jackson advised you that you're not able to work at Gaylord Container Corporation in any other area other than the bogal plant? A. No, sir, he didn't say that. Not only was Seal not medically restricted from working at other parts of the plant, he also contemplated working for Gaylord in other parts of the mill but made no effort to obtain a job there. Quoted below is another exchange at the hearing between Seal and Gaylord's attorney: Q. Have you asked anyone at Gaylord Container Corporation if you could work there? A. No, sir. I figured they'd contact [his attorney] being I had to hire him, you know. Note that Seal did not say that he did not contact Gaylord because he was physically unable to work there. Instead, he says he did not contact them because he thought that Gaylord would contact him about employment. Nothing prevented Seal from working in other parts of the mill. Thus, Gaylord, through B.H. Barker's testimony, established the existence of jobs in other parts of the mill which did not involve direct exposure to sulfuric fumes. [1] These jobs started at $10.21 to $10.61 per hour, with the potential to eventually increase to $16.00 to $17.00 per hour. Majority Opinion at 1167. The employer's burden of proof in supplemental earnings benefits cases is not merely designed to allow him to defeat completely the payment of benefits. It also allows him to reduce the amount of payments to employees entitled to such benefits. This is especially true where an able-bodied employee has an available job where he could make twice the minimum wage, even if these wages are not equal to ninety percent of the employee's pre-injury wages. In this case, B.H. Barker testified that the jobs available at the mill (away from any fumes) had a starting salary of $10.21 to $10.61 per hour. Seal was not medically restricted from performing these jobs. Yet the majority bases its award of benefits to Seal on the difference between his prior salary and minimum wage. I cannot agree with such an award under these facts. Gaylord clearly has shown that jobs are available at its mill which Seal can perform starting at $10.21 per hour. At the least, any award to Seal should be based upon the difference between Seal's prior salary and $10.21 per hour. Yet the majority finds that the most compelling shortfall in Gaylord's attempt to meet its burden of proof was its failure to notify Seal or his counsel that there were any jobs available with Seal's work restrictions. I cannot agree. The plaintiff knew his job restrictions were minimal and knew, as a thirty-eight year union employee at Gaylord's plant, that numerous jobs were available he could perform at Gaylord that he could have bid on, and would have obtained due to his seniority at the mill. Yet he made no effort to obtain employment there. Of course, now he has little incentive to work at Gaylord or anywhere else. Supplemental earnings benefits were intended to help replace the loss of ability to earn prior wages, not to provide a retirement for a healthy worker who can do any job he could do prior to his injury but for working in the bogol plant at the Gaylord mill. I respectfully dissent.