AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The worker, employed as a truck driver, suffered extensive burns and other injuries in a work-related vehicle accident on February 7, 1987. He was unable to return to his previous job but was deemed capable of performing a dispatcher role with a lower salary. The worker argued that his post-injury earnings were not comparable to his pre-injury wages and sought total permanent disability benefits (paras 2, 10, 13, and 15).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Division: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarded the worker 75% permanent partial disability benefits, finding that he was not totally disabled and could earn 84% of his pre-injury wages in a dispatcher role (paras 1-2).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Worker): Argued that the WCJ erred in failing to award total permanent disability, contending that "comparable wages" under the Interim Act should mean equal wages. He also challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting the finding that he could earn $28,500 annually as a dispatcher and argued that the employer should pay his attorney fees (paras 1, 3, 10, and 26).
• Respondent (Employer): Asserted that the worker was capable of earning a comparable wage, as defined by the Interim Act, and that the WCJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The employer also argued that it acted reasonably in handling the worker's claim and should not be required to pay attorney fees (paras 4, 10, and 30-33).

Legal Issues

• Whether "comparable wages" under the Interim Act require post-injury earnings to be equal to pre-injury wages.
• Whether the WCJ's finding that the worker could earn $28,500 annually as a dispatcher was supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the employer should be required to pay the worker's attorney fees.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that "comparable wages" do not require equality with pre-injury wages, that the WCJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and that the employer was not required to pay the worker's attorney fees (paras 9, 19, 25, and 42).

Reasons

Per Bivins CJ. (Donnelly J. concurring):

• Comparable Wages: The court held that "comparable wages" under the Interim Act do not mean equal wages but rather similar wages, allowing for some flexibility. The court relied on prior case law, including Kincaid v. WEK Drilling Co., which demonstrated that comparable wages need not be identical to pre-injury earnings (paras 4-9, 21-22).
• Substantial Evidence: The court found that the WCJ's determination that the worker could earn $28,500 annually as a dispatcher was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony about the worker's transferable skills and the availability of dispatcher positions. The court emphasized that it could not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility under the whole record review standard (paras 10-20).
• Attorney Fees: The court concluded that the employer acted reasonably in handling the worker's claim and did not deny the occurrence of the injury without a reasonable basis. The employer paid temporary total disability benefits and medical costs and attempted to provide vocational rehabilitation. As such, the worker was not entitled to have his attorney fees paid by the employer under the applicable statutory provisions (paras 26-40).

Per Apodaca J., dissenting in part:

• Comparable Wages: Apodaca J. dissented on the issue of comparable wages, arguing that the WCJ's determination lacked sufficient particularized findings and that the court should establish definitive criteria for assessing comparability. He expressed concern that the absence of clear guidelines would lead to inconsistent and arbitrary decisions (paras 44-56).