Opinion ID: 2010464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: loss of earning power evaluation presumption of correctness

Text: Lindsay also contends that the trial judge erred by accepting Rogers' opinion without first finding that the presumption of correctness afforded to the loss of earning power evaluations from the two agreed-upon rehabilitation counselors, Stricklett and Stratman, had been rebutted. Under § 48-162.01(3), a loss of earning power evaluation performed by a vocational rehabilitation counselor selected by the parties is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of correctness. The parties agreed to Stricklett and Stratman as the vocational counselors before trial. Stricklett's report, however, was prepared before Frauendorfer's second surgery and, thus, is not relevant to his loss of earning capacity after that surgery. Stratman opined that Frauendorfer's loss of earning capacity after his second surgery was approximately 30 percent if he returned to light-duty employment at Lindsay and approximately 60 percent if he separated from Lindsay. Here, the trial judge did not specifically state that the presumption of correctness had been rebutted. A rebuttable presumption is generally defined as [a] presumption that can be overturned upon the showing of sufficient proof. Black's Law Dictionary 1186 (6th ed.1990). In all cases not otherwise provided for by statute or by these rules a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence. Neb. Evid. R. 301, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-301 (Reissue 1995). We hold that this rule applies to the rebuttable presumption that an opinion regarding loss of earning capacity expressed by a vocational rehabilitation counselor appointed or selected pursuant to § 48-162.01(3) is correct. Variano v. Dial Corp., 256 Neb. 318, 326, 589 N.W.2d 845, 851 (1999). [I]t is clear that in determining whether the presumption contained in § 48-162.01(3) has been rebutted, the single judge is required to make factual findings. Romero v. IBP, Inc., 9 Neb.App. 927, 932, 623 N.W.2d 332, 336-37 (2001) (holding that because trial judge need not rely on expert testimony in determining extent of claimant's disability, presumption may be rebutted by claimant's testimony as well as testimony of another expert). Lindsay relies upon Rodriguez v. Monfort, Inc., 10 Neb.App. 1, 623 N.W.2d 714 (2001), rev'd on other grounds 262 Neb. 800, 635 N.W.2d 439, to argue that the trial judge's failure to discuss the presumption of correctness is reversible error. In that case, however, no rebuttal opinion was offered and the trial judge referred only to the claimant's testimony and a physical therapist's report in its order. It did not mention the loss of earning power evaluation. The Court of Appeals stated that [w]e cannot tell if the trial judge ignored the statutory presumption or concluded that it had been rebutted. Id. at 8, 623 N.W.2d at 718-19. See, also, Variano v. Dial Corp., supra (statutory presumption must be accepted unless rebutted). In contrast, the trial judge in this case made specific factual findings concerning the presumption. The trial judge stated that he had opinions from both Stratman and Rogers, that he had reviewed the functional capacity evaluation and other evidence, and, specifically, that he believed Frauendorfer's testimony on his physical limitations. He then stated, The Court does not believe the plaintiff is employable... and finds the opinion of Mr. Rogers persuasive. Section 48-162.01(3) anticipates the admission of evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness statutorily assigned to any loss of earning capacity report prepared by the court-appointed vocational rehabilitation counselor. Fay v. Dowding, Dowding, 261 Neb. 216, 230, 623 N.W.2d 287, 297 (2001). The trial judge's statements in its order are sufficient to determine that it considered the presumption of correctness rebutted. We conclude that the trial judge did not err by relying on Frauendorfer's testimony that he required the ability to lie down to relieve the back pain he experienced from either prolonged sitting or standing or Rogers' opinion that Frauendorfer was totally disabled under the odd-lot doctrine. When viewed in the light most favorable to Frauendorfer, the evidence is sufficient to support the award of PTD benefits.