 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eastman v. Insurance Co.8/10/2000
s used appliances, reconditions them, and sells them. Eastman testified that this work does not exceed his physical restrictions.
The court found that Eastman's degree program did not assist him in opening this business and further that his rehabilitation plan had not been reasonable in any case. The court found that North America had not acted unreasonably in refusing to pay rehabilitation benefits. The court noted that Eastman had not been interested when North America initially approached him about a rehabilitation program. When Eastman decided he wanted retraining, the court found that North America acted reasonably in approving his plan subject to medical confirmation and that the potential job would be appropriate in light of his physical restrictions. The court also found that North America acted reasonably in conducting additional research when Eastman changed his plan from small appliance repair to major appliance/HVAC service/sales and ultimately concluding that this field was not vocationally appropriate.
The court concluded that Eastman was not entitled to 104 weeks of rehabilitation benefits for the vo-tech program. The court also denied Eastman's request for attorney fees and costs.
Discussion
Did the Workers' Compensation Court err in determining that Eastman was not entitled to 104 weeks of rehabilitation benefits for a two-year Major Appliance Repair and HVAC vo-tech program when the insurer did not formulate a rehabilitation plan for Eastman and the court found Eastman's rehabilitation plan did not represent reasonable vocational goals and reemployment and wage potential pursuant to § 39-71-2001(1), MCA (1991)?
Eastman argues that North America failed to prepare a rehabilitation plan, which is a prerequisite to obtaining rehabilitation benefits under § 39-71-2001(1), MCA. He urges that we adopt the rule that when a vocational consultant fails to prepare a rehabilitation plan, the injured worker should be allowed to present a plan to the court. Eastman argues that the worker's plan should be approved unless the insurer can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the worker's plan does not have a reasonable vocational goal that will provide for reemployment and wage potential. Eastman contends that the "clear and convincing" standard should be imposed as a penalty when the designated vocational consultant does not prepare a rehabilitation plan.
We agree with North America that Eastman's claim is disingenuous. The record clearly shows that Eastman was determined to pursue his rehabilitation plan-the vo-tech program-and showed no interest in an alternative rehabilitation plan. Even after the court found that Eastman's plan was unreasonable and ordered the parties to work out a new plan, Eastman continued with the vo-tech program and was unable to work out another plan with the rehabilitation provider. The insurer in this case did not attempt to prevent the rehabilitation provider from formulating a rehabilitation plan. Any attempt to formulate an alternative rehabilitation plan would have been futile in light of Eastman's determination to finish the vo-tech program. The need to "punish" the insurer for not formulating a rehabilitation plan by adopting a "clear and convincing" standard does not arise under these facts.
Further, Eastman's contention that the lack of a rehabilitation plan prepared by the rehabilitation provider was somehow attributable to North America's control and direction of Crawford lacks merit. The record reflects that Fairclough did not attempt to control Crawford's evaluation of Eastman's plan.
We note that Eastman was allowed to present his rehabilitation plan t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|