Enos v. Elite Mechanical

In this workers compensation case, Claimant-Appellant Norman P. Enos appeals from the November 29, 2004 decision and order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) affirming in part and modifying in part the September 6, 2002 decision of the Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (Director) awarding Enos temporary total disability (TTD) and permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. On appeal, Enos contends that the LIRAB erred in determining that he is not permanently and totally disabled (PTD) on either a medical or odd-lot basis. Specifically, Enos argues that: (1) the LIRAB erred as a matter of law in (a) concluding that he failed to make out a prima facie case that he was PTD on an odd-lot basis, and thus (b) failing to shift the burden to Insurance Carrier-Appellee Eagle Insurance Companies (Eagle) and Employer-Appellee Elite Mechanical, Inc. (Elite) [hereinafter collectively, Elite] to show that appropriate employment existed for Enos; (2) the LIRAB clearly erred in making certain findings of fact and failing to make findings about other facts that would support a finding of PTD; and (3) the LIRAB erred as a matter of law in utilizing Enoss medical capability to engage in light sedentary work as the test for whether he was PTD when it should have assessed whether he had a reasonable prospect of finding work in the normal labor market. Enos further asserts that his psychiatric condition warrants greater than 15% PPD of the whole person. Elite counters that: (1) (a) the LIRAB did not clearly err in determining that Enos had failed to establish a prima facie case of PTD under the odd-lot doctrine, and (b) therefore the burden never shifted; (2) the LIRAB did not err in finding that Enos was not PTD either on a medical or odd-lot basis; and (3) the LIRAB did not err in determining Enoss PPD benefits. Appellee Special Compensation Fund (SCF) also argues that: (1) there is substantial evidence in the record to support the LIRABs finding that Enos is not PTD on an odd-lot basis; (2) the LIRAB did not err in identifying or applying the legal standard for "total disability" because it implicitly found that Enos had a reasonable prospect of finding work in the normal labor market; and (3) the LIRABs overall PTD finding is not clearly erroneous because it is supported by substantial evidence.