Opinion ID: 2514433
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Return to work at 95% of pre-injury wage

Text: [¶15] [W]hen an injury deprives the worker of the ability to rely on prior experience and training in a particular occupation, which results in a decrease of the worker's earning capacity, the injured workman is entitled to compensation. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div. v. Borodine, 784 P.2d 228, 230 (Wyo. 1989). To be awarded PPD benefits, Baldwin had to show that he was unable to return to employment at a wage that was at least 95% of his pre-injury wage. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h)(iii) (LexisNexis 2007). Impairment of earning capacity is determined by taking into consideration the following factors: (a) Physical impairmentthe nature and extent of injury. (b) The worker's age. (c) The worker's education. (d) Ability to continue pre-injury employment. (e) Post-injury employment prospects. (f) Pre-injury earnings. (g) Post-injury earnings. No single factor of those listed above is determinative of the extent or existence of loss of earning capacity. They are all evidence to be considered together with all of the other facts and circumstances in determining whether a loss of earning capacity in fact occurred and, if so, the percentage of loss. State ex rel. Wyo. Worker's Comp. Div. v. White, 837 P.2d 1095, 1097 (Wyo. 1992). The extent of the injured worker's disability pursuant to the loss of earning requirement becomes a question of fact. Any evidence, medical and non-medical, that is relevant may be considered by the hearing officer. Borodine, 784 P.2d at 231. [¶16] Baldwin was earning $17.00 per hour when he was injured. To qualify for PPD, Baldwin was required to show that he was unable to secure employment at a wage equal to 95% of his pre-injury pay  $16.15 per hour. The hearing examiner concluded that Baldwin satisfied this requirement. The Division contends that the hearing examiner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because he failed to consider the vocational evaluation, which listed jobs paying over 95% of Baldwin's pre-injury wage. Additionally, the Division contends that the hearing examiner failed properly to resolve conflicting medical reports concerning Baldwin's physical limitations. [¶17] With regard to the medical evidence and availability of jobs, the hearing examiner found: 14. The medical evidence further supports the Claimant's limited employment. The Office points out that Dr. Kroner's evaluation of [Baldwin] stated that the Claimant would have no restrictions, but does not appear to be very detailed and is discounted by the Office. On the other hand, Dr. Ruttle's observation was that the Claimant could return to his job in the oilfield but that he has lifting restrictions of 60 pounds once a day and 40 pounds repetitively. The Office questions the value of Dr. Ruttle's opinion as to the Claimant returning to a job in the oilfield; in that the Office questions Dr. Ruttle's knowledge as to the actual functional capacity oilfield employment entails. Nevertheless, Dr. Ruttle's testimony as to the Claimant's physical limitations is conclusive. 15. The employment available to the Claimant is limited to heavy manual labor. The above mentioned factors restrict the type of employment available to the Claimant. In addition, his percentage of physical impairment and lifting restrictions limit these employment options further. 16. Therefore, the Office does conclude that the Claimant had lifting restrictions as a result of his work related accident. These restrictions resulted in his being unable to return to employment at a rate within 95% of the amount he was making at the time of his injury, which was $17.00 an hour. Most of the jobs that appeared on the job search records were in the $12.00-to-$14.00 an hour range if they could accommodate the Claimant's limitations. Therefore, the Office finds that the Claimant has shown by substantial evidence that he is eligible for a permanent partial disability award and benefits should be awarded accordingly. [¶18] It is true that there was conflicting medical evidence concerning Baldwin's physical limitations. In December of 2003, Dr. Kroner released Baldwin to work without restriction. Then, in February of 2004, as the result of an Orthopedic Medical Evaluation, Dr. Ruttle imposed certain physical restrictions. As the finder of fact, it is the hearing examiner's duty to weigh the evidence and resolve such conflicts. Kuntz-Dexter v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2002 WY 101, ¶ 12, 49 P.3d 190, 193 (Wyo. 2002). The hearing examiner addressed the conflicting evidence when he discounted Dr. Kroner's opinion because of its lack of detail and accepted the restrictions imposed by Dr. Ruttle. While the evidence was such that the hearing examiner could have reasonably accepted Dr. Kroner's opinion and disregarded the opinion of Dr. Ruttle, the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from a body of evidence does not prevent a finding that the conclusion drawn by the administrative agency was supported by substantial evidence. Vandehei Developers v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wyo., 790 P.2d 1282, 1287 (Wyo. 1990). [¶19] The Division also asserts that the hearing examiner failed properly to consider the vocational evaluation. We find this contention to be without merit. Citing Lunde v. State ex. rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 6 P.3d 1256 (Wyo. 2000), the hearing examiner stated: Vocational evaluations should be based on available jobs in Wyoming, and evaluation of such jobs must be conducted with some basis in reality which gives recognition to the worker's disability. The vocational evaluation stated: Labor market research indicated that jobs, for which Mr. Baldwin would likely qualify, would pay between $7-$10 an hour, with some jobs paying higher, i.e. up to $20 an hour depending on experience. Our review of the record and the job listings provided in the vocational evaluation reveals that the bulk of the jobs for with Baldwin would qualify were in the $7-$10 range. The up to $20 jobs were more skilled positions requiring experience, or oilfield jobs for which Baldwin would not qualify because of his physical restrictions. Thus, the hearing examiner's determination that Baldwin could not return to employment at 95% of his pre-injury wage is supported by substantial evidence.