This is аn appeal in a proceeding under the Nebraska Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The plaintiff, Charles M. Aldrich, slipped and fell, injuring his back, on February 26,1982, while emрloyed as a laborer by the defendant, ASARCO, Incorporated. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was injured as the result of an accident which arose out оf and in the course of his employment.
After the hearing before a single judge of the compensation court, the plaintiff recovered an award for mеdical expenses and temporary total disability from April 3,1984, to the date of hearing, and for so long thereafter as he remained totally disabled. Upon rehearing, the plaintiff recovered an award of compensation for temporary total disability from April 3 to November 5, 1984, and compensation for а 30-percent loss of earning power for not to exceed 269 weeks thereafter. The plaintiff was also awarded past and future medical expenses and attorney fees.
The defendant, ASARCO, Incorporated, has appealed and contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the cоurt’s award of compensation for a 30-percent loss of earning power. The plaintiff has cross-appealed and contends that the evidenсe was insufficient to support the finding that the plaintiff’s temporary total disability had terminated.
*128 The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant as a laborеr for approximately 14 years but was terminated from employment after his injury and before any disability other than pain had occurred. At the time of the reheаring he was 39 years old, had not completed the eighth grade, could not fill out his own job application, and, in his words, could not read or write “that good.”
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a Workmen’s Compensation Court award, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the suсcessful party.
Baumbach
v.
Standard Chem. Mfg. Co.,
The defendant contends that the award of compensation for a 30-percent loss of earning power was clearly wrong because at the time of the rehearing the plaintiff’s employment had been terminated. Although the record is not clear, it appears that the plaintiff was terminated for reasons other than his back injury. The defendant contends the plaintiff’s earning power had been diminished by events other than his injury.
Earning power is not synonymous with wages,
Anderson
v.
Cowger,
Although the accident occurred on February 26, 1982, the plaintiff testified that he felt pain in his bаck immediately after *129 he fell down and that he reported the accident to Dr. Sasse, the company doctor, on the following Monday, which was his next workday after the day on which the accident happened. Dr. Sasse prescribed pain pills and muscle relaxants.
On March 6,1982, the plaintiff consulted another рhysician, Dr. Margules. On April 12, 1982, he consulted Dr. Angel, his family physician, because the pain was getting worse. According to the plaintiff, Dr. Angel had some x rays made and “shot some needles” in his back.
The plaintiff continued to work, although the pain continued, being worse on some days than on other days.
On April 3, 1984, the plaintiff went to the hospitаl because the pain had become so bad he “couldn’t hardly walk.” A myelogram was performed on April 5, 1984. The plaintiff’s employment was terminated on Marсh 15,1984.
On April 30, 1984, he was hospitalized and exploratory surgery performed. He was again hospitalized from June 24 through July 4. A laminectomy was performed on June 27. As of the dаte of the rehearing, Dr. Margules had not released the plaintiff to return to work and had restricted his lifting to not more than 20 pounds.
At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff was examined by Dr. O’Neil. According to Dr. O’Neil, the plaintiff had sustained a 15-percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of the injury and operative procedures. Dr. O’Neil stated that the plaintiff could probably tolerate moderate periods of sitting and standing but should avoid work which would require stooping, lifting, bending, and other stressful activities which would further aggravate his back.
The compensation court, upon rehearing, determined the plaintiff’s disability wаs a 30-percent loss of earning power based upon “the extent of plaintiff’s physical impairment as set forth by Dr. O’Neil, the wages earned by the plaintiff at thе time of injury, the work restrictions imposed on him by Dr. O’Neil, and plaintiff’s limited educational background ....”
“Earning power,” as used in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-121(2) (Reissue 1978), is not synonymous with wages, but includes еligibility to procure employment generally, ability to hold a job obtained, and capacity to *130 perform the tasks of the work, as well as the ability of the wоrkman to earn wages in the employment in which he is engaged or for which he is fitted.
Akins v. Happy Hour,
Inc.,
As we view the record, it sustains the award on rehearing.
The cross-appeal centers on whether the finding that the plaintiff was no longer temporarily totally disabled was in error. The plaintiff contends (1) that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that temporary disability has ended and he is now permanently partially disabled and (2) that he should receive compensation for total disability because he is undergoing rehabilitatiоn.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the successful party, in this instance the defendant, the record supports the compensation award. Thе medical evidence supplied by Dr. O’Neil, which is the most recent, appears to be uncontradicted. According to Dr. O’Neil, “Mr. Aldrich is entitled to a fifteen pеrcent
permanent
partial disability of the body as a whole as a result of his back injury and two subsequent operative procedures.” (Emphasis supplied.) The fact that thе plaintiff was not released by either Dr. O’Neil or his own physician to return to work does not compel a finding that the plaintiff has not reached his maximum recovery. When a workman has reached his maximum recovery, the remaining disability is permanent and he is no longer entitled to compensation for temporary disability. See,
Allen v. Department of Roads and Irrigation,
The compensation court, on rehearing, found that the plaintiff was entitled to rehabilitation, that the plaintiff should cooperate in being tested аnd evaluated by his rehabilitation counselor or other expert, and that a rehabilitation plan should be formulated. The plan should be submitted to the defendant, and if the defendant fails to approvе the plan, the plaintiff may *131 then apply to the compensation court for a further hearing limited to the issue of rehabilitation. The record now before us does not show that these requirements have been satisfied.
The compensation court may prescribe the procedure to be followed if an injured wоrkman desires to obtain the benefit of rehabilitation services under the statute.
Camp v. Blount Bros. Corp.,
We conclude that the record supports the award of the Nebraska Workmen’s Compensation Court on rehearing, and the judgment must be affirmed.
The plaintiff is allowed $1,000 for the services of his attorney in this court.
Affirmed.