Anderson v. EMCOR Group, 298 Neb. 174

Charles Anderson, a former EMCOR millwright, injured his right upper extremity and was awarded a vocational rehabilitation evaluation after reaching maximum medical improvement.
Parties agreed on vocational rehabilitation counselor Lisa Porter, who proposed a 2-year associate degree in agriculture/horticulture aimed at supervisory/manager positions with projected post-training wages (~$13.20/hr initially; median supervisory wage cited ~$49,100/yr).
The compensation court’s vocational rehabilitation specialist denied the plan, finding labor-market data did not support the need for formal training and noting Anderson already performed seasonal gardening work.
EMCOR petitioned to modify the award to eliminate vocational services, arguing Anderson’s current gardening and low-earning activity made retraining unnecessary and that he accepted lower wages; Anderson moved to approve Porter’s plan, testifying he needed other employment before achieving self-employment.
The Workers’ Compensation Court denied EMCOR’s modification petition and approved the training plan, concluding Anderson’s current income (~$8,000/yr) was not suitable employment and the plan could reasonably restore him to suitable employment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed vocational rehabilitation plan would restore claimant to "suitable employment" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-162.01	Anderson: plan is reasonably necessary to restore him to suitable employment compatible with his age, education, and aptitude; current gardening income is not suitable	EMCOR: plan is unnecessary because Anderson currently gardens and sells produce and has consented to earn lower wages; labor-market data do not justify formal training	Affirmed: Court found competent evidence supporting that the plan could lead to suitable employment and that current earnings were not suitable

Gardner v. International Paper Destr. & Recycl., 291 Neb. 415 (2015) (standard that factual findings of compensation court have effect of jury verdict)
Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (2016) (appellate court reviews questions of law de novo in workers’ compensation cases)
Stacy v. Great Lakes Agri Mktg., 276 Neb. 236 (2008) (entitlement to vocational rehabilitation ordinarily a factual question)
Yager v. Bellco Midwest, 236 Neb. 888 (1991) (adopted definitions of “restore,” “gainful employment,” and “suitable employment” as compatible with pre-injury occupation, age, education, and aptitude)
Becerra v. United Parcel Service, 284 Neb. 414 (2012) (discusses vocational rehabilitation priorities under § 48-162.01)
Tapia-Reyes v. Excel Corp., 281 Neb. 15 (2011) (noting liberal construction of the Workers’ Compensation Act to effectuate remedial purposes)