Court Opinion

ID: 9860576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:26:16.696597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:32.658728
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RARICK, dissenting: In its November 13, 1991, decision, the Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the arbitrator, specifically finding that King had established that he fell into the “odd-lot” category and was permanently and totally disabled. The Commission found that King was a 59-year-old unskilled laborer with a third-grade education. (He is now 66 years old.) His rehabilitation report stated that he was functionally illiterate and had made a diligent but unsuccessful job search. The Commission also noted that King’s attempt at vocational rehabilitation was unsuccessful and that King’s employer, R.R. Donnelly, failed to demonstrate the availability of a reasonably stable job market for a person in King’s circumstances. Given the facts of this case, I believe that having King submit to a medical exam would serve no meaningful purpose-and that the Commission abused its discretion in so ordering. Permanent and total disability under the odd-lot doctrine is not simply a matter of physical impairment but, rather, depends on the relationship between the claimant’s physical impairment and his age, education, training, and work experience. A finding of permanent and total disability under the odd-lot doctrine is a determination that, because of the relationship between these factors, the claimant is essentially unemployable. A showing of a change in physical condition would not be meaningful absent a showing of how this change impacts, and is impacted by, the other factors. I would hold that to be entitled to require the employee to submit to a section 12 medical exam, the employer must make some minimal showing that there is reason to believe that the employee’s physical condition has changed and that this change, in relation to the other factors, renders the employee employable. In the present case, all of the other factors militated very strongly in favor of permanent and total disability, and there is no indication that any of them have changed. The employer has made no showing that there is reason to believe that King’s physical condition has improved, nor is there any showing that the alleged improved condition, in light of the other factors, is such that work would now be available to a person in his circumstances. For the foregoing reasons, I dissent. COLWELL, J., joins this dissent.