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 Plaintiff, a truck driver, suffered a work-related back injury in January 1983, which was aggravated in March 1983. This led to a 60% permanent partial disability determination in 1986. Subsequent medical treatments, including a laminectomy, spinal fusion, and a left hip replacement, caused further complications, including septic necrosis in the hips. The Plaintiff alleged that his condition had worsened, rendering him permanently totally disabled and sought an increase in workers' compensation benefits and vocational rehabilitation services (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- Trial Court, 1986: Determined the Plaintiff suffered a 60% permanent partial disability due to a work-related injury and awarded benefits accordingly (paras 2-3).
- Court of Appeals, February 26, 1987: Affirmed the trial court's judgment on the Plaintiff's disability percentage (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that his physical condition had deteriorated since the prior judgment, resulting in permanent total disability. He also claimed entitlement to vocational rehabilitation services due to his inability to return to his former employment (paras 7, 17).
- Defendant: Contended that while the Plaintiff's physical condition had changed, there was no evidence of an increase in his percentage of disability. The Defendant also argued that the Plaintiff was capable of performing light, sedentary work and did not require vocational rehabilitation (paras 12, 22).
Legal Issues
- Did the Plaintiff's disability increase, warranting an adjustment to his workers' compensation benefits?
- Was the Plaintiff entitled to vocational rehabilitation services under the applicable law?
Disposition
- The Court affirmed the trial court's denial of an increase in the Plaintiff's disability benefits (para 28).
- The Court reversed the trial court's denial of vocational rehabilitation services and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 28).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Bivins C.J. and Apodaca J. concurring):
Disability Increase: The Court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the Plaintiff's percentage of disability had not increased. While the Plaintiff's physical condition had changed, the evidence, including medical testimony, indicated no change in his ability to perform light, sedentary work. The Court emphasized that its role was not to reweigh evidence but to determine whether the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence (paras 10-14).
Vocational Rehabilitation: The Court found that the Plaintiff met the statutory requirements for vocational rehabilitation services. The evidence showed that the Plaintiff was unable to return to his former employment and required significant vocational rehabilitation to restore him to suitable employment. The Defendant did not refute this evidence. The Court concluded that the trial court erred in denying vocational rehabilitation benefits and remanded the case to determine an appropriate rehabilitation plan (paras 20-27).