Opinion ID: 1677363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: McGOWAN'S RIGHT TO VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Text: Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-162.01 (Reissue 1988) sets forth the situations in which the compensation court can award vocational rehabilitation benefits. Subsection (3) of that statute, at all times relevant to this action, stated in part: When as a result of the injury an employee is unable to perform work for which he or she has previous training or experience, he or she shall be entitled to such vocational rehabilitation services, including retraining and job placement, as may be reasonably necessary to restore him or her to suitable employment. (Emphasis supplied.) Furthermore, subsection (6) of § 48-162.01 stated: Whenever the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court or judge thereof determines that there is a reasonable probability that with appropriate training, rehabilitation, or education a person who is entitled to compensation for total or partial disability which is or is likely to be permanent may be rehabilitated to the extent that he or she ... can ... increase his or her earning capacity ... if the injured employee without reasonable cause refuses to undertake the rehabilitation, training, or educational program ... the compensation court or judge thereof may suspend, reduce, or limit the compensation otherwise payable under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act. (Emphasis supplied.) In Sidel v. Travelers Ins. Co., 205 Neb. 541, 549, 288 N.W.2d 482, 486 (1980), this court held that when read together, subsections (3) and (6) of § 48-162.01 meant that the statute authorizes vocational rehabilitation training not only under the circumstances outlined in subsection (3), but also where the Workmen's Compensation Court finds that the employee has suffered a reduction in earning power on account of a compensable injury and also finds that vocational rehabilitation will increase that earning capacity. Accord, Bindrum v. Foote & Davies, 235 Neb. 903, 457 N.W.2d 828 (1990); Thom v. Lutheran Medical Center, 226 Neb. 737, 414 N.W.2d 810 (1987). We are aware that subsection (6) of § 48-162.01 has recently been amended and no longer includes the language emphasized above. The amendments to § 48-162.01 became effective on January 1, 1994. The statute, as previously quoted, existed at the time of McGowan's accident, at the time of his rehearing, and at the time of the compensation court's award. Therefore, that language governs McGowan's claim for vocational rehabilitation. Cf. Allen v. IBP, Inc., 219 Neb. 424, 363 N.W.2d 520 (1985). We now turn to a review of the compensation court's determination of whether McGowan is entitled to vocational rehabilitation. The compensation court panel majority found that McGowan failed to prove he could not perform work for which he had previous training or experience. Prior to his accident, McGowan had a high school education and had attended 1 year of college. Throughout his life, McGowan worked primarily as a physical laborer, holding jobs as a farm laborer, construction worker, janitor/custodian, and machinist, as well as other labor-intensive positions. In determining that the workers' compensation panel majority was correct in denying McGowan vocational rehabilitation, the Court of Appeals recited, inter alia, (1) the various jobs McGowan undertook before and after his injury; (2) that McGowan performed well as a toolcrib clerk and apparently could have continued to perform such work without vocational rehabilitation; and (3) McGowan's ability to work at Banner Feed Company and to help care for cattle and horses owned by him and his wife, all of which indicated that McGowan would require no additional training to perform those types of work. The fact that McGowan could have worked as a toolcrib clerk for $5 per hour or that he had held a job at Banner Feed Company for $5 per hour does not automatically disqualify him from receiving vocational rehabilitation benefits. In Yager v. Bellco Midwest, 236 Neb. 888, 464 N.W.2d 335 (1991), this court stated that a finding that a workers' compensation claimant currently maintains a minimum-wage job is not, in and of itself, sufficient to support a denial of vocational rehabilitation benefits. In Yager, the court remanded the cause for further proceedings on the issue of whether Yager was entitled to vocational rehabilitation. Yager was earning $220 a week at the time of his injury, and had accepted a minimum-wage job paying $104 a week after his injury. The court stated that to ignore the proportionately large difference between Yager's wages before and after the injury would be to ignore the statutory goal of returning injured workers to suitable, that is, comparable, employment. Yager, 236 Neb. at 897, 464 N.W.2d at 341. The court held that accepting a job paying minimum wage does not automatically `restore' a claimant to `suitable' or `gainful' employment pursuant to § 48-162.01, where the claimant's previous employment was at a significantly higher wage. Id. at 896, 464 N.W.2d at 340. The reasoning in Yager is consistent with the governing language of subsection (6) of § 48-162.01 (Reissue 1988). At the relevant time involved here, that section authorized the compensation court to award McGowan vocational rehabilitation if it found that (1) McGowan suffered a reduction in earning power and (2) vocational rehabilitation would increase his earning capacity. A determination as to whether an injured worker has had a loss of earning power and whether there is a reasonable probability that vocational rehabilitation services would reduce the amount of earning power lost by an injured worker, if any, are questions of fact to be determined by the Workers' Compensation Court. See Thom v. Lutheran Medical Center, 226 Neb. 737, 414 N.W.2d 810 (1987). The compensation court in McGowan's case failed to make findings either way, although the record contains evidence relevant to these issues. The workers' compensation panel majority's findings that McGowan's average weekly wage prior to his accident was $302.24 and that his anticipated weekly salary as a toolcrib clerk would have been $200 are relevant to whether McGowan suffered a reduction in earning power. The workers' compensation panel made no finding of fact in this regard. However, the Court of Appeals held that the two salaries were comparable. A change in salary from $302.24 to $200 per week constitutes an almost 34-percent reduction in weekly wages. The Court of Appeals' holding that the two salaries are comparable is clearly wrong as a matter of law. As to the probability that vocational rehabilitation would reduce McGowan's loss of earning power, the evidence shows that McGowan's vocational rehabilitation counselor thought the proposed rehabilitation plan would indeed help McGowan secure employment at a wage comparable to what he had been earning before his injury. In a letter admitted into evidence, McGowan's vocational rehabilitation counselor stated: Based upon the description of the duties of Mr. McGowan's position, I felt Mr. McGowan would not be able to perform the work for which he was employed at Lockwood. Furthermore, I felt his disability and associated limitations would result in his being either unemployed or, at best, underemployedboth in task performance and earnings.... .... The goal [of becoming a feedlot or ranch manager] was appropriate since it utilized Mr. McGowan's personal experiences as well as met his interests. Furthermore, attainment of that goal would help ensure Mr. McGowan would be better able to support his family at wage level fairly consistent to that received at the time of his injury. There was additional evidence and testimony by the vocational rehabilitation counselor from which the workers' compensation panel could have and should have made a finding of fact as to whether vocational rehabilitation would decrease McGowan's loss of earning capacity.