CLAIM NO. D913833
LEVA MULLENS, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT, and CIGNA INSURANCE CO., CARRIER, RESPONDENT Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED DECEMBER 6, 1994
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by DENVER L. THORNTON, Attorney at Law, El Dorado, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by NORWOOD PHILLIPS, Attorney at Law, El Dorado, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission from the decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed on November 15, 1993 finding that claimant is not entitled to a vocational rehabilitation evaluation. We find claimant failed to prove that she is entitled to a rehabilitation evaluation. Also, based upon a review of the evidence, we find that the plan proposed by claimant is not reasonable and necessary in light of her work-related injury. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and expand the decision to include a denial of claimant’s request for the rehabilitation plan.
[3] Claimant suffered a compensable injury while working for respondent in July of 1989. As a result of said injury, she sustained a 16% permanent impairment to the body as a whole. Respondent has paid temporary total disability benefits, medical benefits and permanent partial disability benefits. Prior to claimant’s work-related injury, she had worked as a nurse’s aide and as a security guard. Subsequent to her injury, she has enrolled into Southern Arkansas Community College seeking a degree in office management. As of the date of the hearing, claimant had completed two semesters and was attending classes in her third. JTPA and Pell Grants have paid for claimant’s tuition, etc. One thousand three hundred and fifty dollars ($1,350) of the money paid to claimant does not have to be repaid. [4] Claimant filed this claim contending that she is entitled to a rehabilitation evaluation. However, after all the evidence was presented at the hearing, claimant’s attorney changed claimant’s contention and maintained that claimant is entitled to rehabilitation in the form of payment of her office management degree from Southern Arkansas Community College. We find that a rehabilitation evaluation is unnecessary. [5] Furthermore, based upon a de novo review of the record, we find that claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence she is entitled to the rehabilitation benefits sought. [6] An award of rehabilitation benefits is discretionary with the Commission and claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the proposed plan is reasonable in relation to the disability sustained. Coosenberry v. McCroskey SheetMetal,
6 Ark. App. 177,
639 S.W.2d 518 (1982). The claimant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that she has satisfied both the “entitlement” and the “reasonableness” test. Lester v. No. 1 Orchids, Full Commission opinion filed Sept. 23, 1983 (
C916342); Tackett v. Hickory SpringsMfg. Co., Full Commission opinion filed August 4, 1979 (
C715817). [7] Claimant in this case has met her “entitlement” test since she has been assigned a permanent anatomical impairment rating equal to 16% to the body as a whole. However, claimant has failed to satisfy the “reasonableness” test. [8] Claimant is relatively young, 43 years old. She has her GED and has prior work experience as a nurse’s aid and as a security guard. Claimant testified that she could probably return to work as a security guard. We find claimant could return to work without special training. We further find that the proposed rehabilitation plan of obtaining a college degree is not reasonable and necessary. There is insufficient evidence that claimant is not capable of obtaining gainful employment within her physical limitations. The record shows that she is an intelligent individual who by her own testimony acknowledges that she is capable of obtaining gainful employment without additional retraining. Therefore, claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she is entitled to the requested rehabilitation benefits. [9] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, chairman ALLYN C. TATUM, Commissioner
[10] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.