Vocational - Return To Work Matters: Job Analysis

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

McFerran v. Consolidated Freightways [12/28/00] 2000 MT 365 Although certified vocational consultant testified pharmacy delivery job provided anywhere from two to six hours of employment per day, claimant did not have reasonable prospect of "regular employment" within section 39-71-116(24), MCA (1997) where the written job analysis prepared by the consultant stated work hours could be as little as one hour per day, six hours per week, making the position not "substantial and significant."

WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS

Short v. J.H. Kelly Holdings, [09/24/09] 2009 MTWCC 33 Where an employee was injured while working as a millwright and had previously demonstrated a willingness to travel for this type of employment, his labor market would be the states where he had previously worked. However, it makes little sense to use a millwright’s multi-state labor market in developing alternative job analyses. Although it would be reasonable to expect the employee to travel in the same manner as he had before his injury if he returned to his time-of-injury job, it is not reasonable to expect him to travel as an itinerant bowling attendant.

Benhart v. Liberty Northwest [01/05/07] 2007 MTWCC 3 Petitioner suffered from Hepatitis C which significantly worsened after his industrial injury and which made employment impossible. Although Respondent argued that Petitioner was not entitled to PTD benefits because his condition at the time of his industrial injury did not render him permanently totally disabled, Respondent submitted no approved job analyses and therefore did not prove that any job exists which Petitioner would have been capable of performing but for the complications of his Hepatitis C.

Peterson v. MSGIA [04/07/06] 2006 MTWCC 14 In spite of signing his “approval” to the five job analyses, Petitioner’s doctor consistently and concurrently opined that Petitioner’s overall health would preclude him from successfully returning to the workforce, and this Court concludes Petitioner is not employable in the jobs which Respondent has identified.

Peterson v. MSGIA [04/07/06] 2006 MTWCC 14 Where Petitioner has reached MMI, and his doctor approved but subsequently disavowed his approval of submitted job analyses, the Court, having had the opportunity to observe Petitioner’s demeanor at trial and to assess the evidence as a whole, determined that Petitioner is unable to perform the five submitted jobs, either because of physical limitations, a lack of required skills, or both.