Opinion ID: 1156136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board Correctly Denied Brunke's Claim for Unscheduled Permanent Partial Disability Compensation as Unsupported by Evidence.

Text: In its February 1984 decision and order, the Board found that while MAPCO was liable for compensation for Brunke's back injury, Brunke had failed to produce evidence of his post-injury earnings. Therefore, the Board denied his claim for compensation. Brunke relies primarily on Dr. Teague's testimony to establish his disability. Teague testified that by applying the AMA disability guidelines he rated Brunke's permanent partial disability as 3% loss of the shoulder, 5% loss of the lower back and 3% loss of the whole man. [Teague Depo 10] His best guesstimate of the possible effect of these figures was that Brunke could lose 5-10 days a year. Brunke argues, therefore, that he is entitled to $2,400.00 per year for the rest of his work life ($24.00 per hour/10 hour work day/10 days a year). The decisions of this court make it clear that it is the loss of earning capacity and not physical disability per se that is measured when awarding compensation for future losses. As early as 1962 we held that the degree of permanent partial disability was to be calculated by determining loss of earning capacity. Awards are not to be made for physical injury as such, but for `disability' produced by such injury. A compensable `disability' under this section is equated with an impairment of earning capacity. Manthey v. Collier, 367 P.2d 884, 888 (Alaska 1962) (footnote omitted). We have continued to apply this definition. See Hewing v. Peter Kiewit & Sons, 586 P.2d 182, 185-86 (Alaska 1978); Vetter v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Board, 524 P.2d 264, 266 (Alaska 1974). See generally 2 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, 10-1 to 10-164.173 (1983) (exhaustive discussion of the distinction). AS 23.30.210 [9] allows the Board to fix a reasonable wage earning capacity if an employee has no actual earnings or if the earnings do not fairly and reasonably represent the wage earning capacity. The statute does not mandate such a determination, however. It states: the board may, in the interest of justice, make such a determination. AS 23.30.210 (emphasis added). Brunke maintains that the Board erred in not making that determination. Brunke argues that it was the Board's duty to solicit evidence of Brunke's post-injury earnings. He admits that he submitted no such evidence. The Board found that since Brunke has only worked short calls since the accident, [t]he effects, if any, of his back condition ... are not yet known. The Board apparently placed the burden of producing evidence of loss of earning capacity on Brunke. The explicit language of AS 23.30.210 does not clarify who bears the burden of proof of lost earning capacity. We have not previously addressed this problem. We have, however, held that [t]he burden of proof as to each element of the claim is on the claimant, once the employer rebuts the presumption of compensability. [10] Delaney v. Alaska Airlines, 693 P.2d 859, 862 (Alaska 1985); Miller v. ITT Arctic Services, 577 P.2d 1044, 1049 (Alaska 1978). Other states have interpreted their compensation statute to place the burden upon the claimant. Arizona squarely places the burden on the employee to show loss of earning capacity. Fremont Indemnity v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 144 Ariz. 339, 697 P.2d 1089 (1985) (involving an unscheduled injury which occurred outside Arizona but became part of a subsequent claim). The Arizona court stated: the burden is on the injured employee to show a loss of earning capacity. 697 P.2d at 1095 (emphasis added); see also Felker v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 134 Ariz. 19, 653 P.2d 369 (Ariz. App. 1982). Oregon has also placed the burden of proof on the employee. Recognizing that there was no specific statutory language dealing with the burden of proof, the Oregon court resolved the issue by relying on traditional notions of burden of proof. Compensation of Harris v. SAIF Corp., 292 Or. 683, 642 P.2d 1147 (1982). Generally, the proponent of a position bears the burden of producing evidence to prove it. Id. This approach is sensible. Since Alaska relies on earning capacity and not physical impairment, the impact of an unscheduled injury must be proven. The employee can best produce information of his post-injury earnings. It is not an unreasonable or unfair burden to place on the employee. The Board still retains the power to make a separate calculation if justice so requires, pursuant to the statute. [11] Lacking further evidence the Board correctly denied Brunke's claim. However, because the allocation of the burden of proof on this issue was unclear from the statute and prior case law, on remand Brunke may present any evidence of his loss of earning capacity. [12] AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.