Anderson v. EMCOR Group, 298 Neb. 174

Charles Anderson, a former millwright earning $26.50/hour, injured his upper right extremity and later was found entitled to a vocational rehabilitation evaluation.
Parties agreed on vocational counselor Lisa Porter, who proposed formal training: a 2-year AAS in agriculture business/management (horticulture) at Southeast Community College to train Anderson for supervisory/manager roles.
Porter concluded local jobs at comparable pay were unlikely; projected post-training wage ~$13.20/hour but argued supervisory roles in farming could pay much more.
The compensation court’s vocational rehabilitation specialist denied the plan based on labor-market data showing low-wage openings and that Anderson already performed vegetable-growing work.
EMCOR petitioned to modify (seeking elimination of rehabilitation benefits), arguing Anderson’s gardening/sales and consent to lower wages made retraining unnecessary; Anderson moved to approve the plan.
The Workers’ Compensation Court denied EMCOR’s petition and approved Porter’s plan, finding Anderson’s current earnings (~$8,000/yr) were not suitable employment and the plan could reasonably lead to suitable employment. EMCOR appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed vocational rehabilitation plan is reasonably necessary to restore Anderson to suitable employment	Anderson: Plan will train him for supervisory/manager roles compatible with his interests, education, and aptitude and is necessary because current income is not suitable	EMCOR: Anderson already performs gardening/sales and accepts lower wages; formal retraining is unnecessary	Court affirmed approval: competent evidence supports that plan may restore Anderson to suitable employment
Whether compensation court’s findings are supported by competent evidence	Anderson: Court found limited job opportunities locally and need for additional education; these facts supported approval	EMCOR: Specialist’s denial and local job data rebut plan necessity	Court: Findings were supported and not clearly wrong; statutory goal favors restoration to suitable employment

Gardner v. International Paper Destr. & Recycl., 291 Neb. 415 (discusses appellate review of compensation court findings)
Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (statutory interpretation in workers’ compensation contexts)
Stacy v. Great Lakes Agri Mktg., 276 Neb. 236 (vocational rehabilitation entitlement is ordinarily a factual question)
Yager v. Bellco Midwest, 236 Neb. 888 (adopted definitions of "restore," "suitable employment," and "gainful employment")
Tapia-Reyes v. Excel Corp., 281 Neb. 15 (Workers’ Compensation Act construed liberally to effect beneficent purposes)
Ex Parte Beaver Valley Corp., 477 So. 2d 408 (Ala.) (definition of "suitable employment" as compatible with pre-injury occupation, age, education, and aptitude)