Opinion
Argued September 25, 1978
November 15, 1978.
Workmen's compensation — Availability of suitable work — Sufficient evidence — Burden of proof.
1. An employer to sustain his burden of proving that there exists suitable work which a workmen's compensation claimant suffering a partial disability can perform need not show the existence of specific job openings and evidence of the existence of a number of such positions generally available in a number of companies in the local job market is sufficient. [474]
Argued September 25, 1978, before Judges ROGERS, BLATT and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1913 C.D. 1976, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of William Dreher v. Budd Company, No. A-71402.
Petition with the Department of Labor and Industry for disability benefits. Petition dismissed. Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Appeal dismissed. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Walter Walkenhorst, for appellant.
John C. Wright, Jr., with him Medford J. Brown, III, Alison Douglas Knox, and Montgomery, McCracken, Walker Rhoads, and James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
William Dreher (claimant) appeals from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed a referee's decision dismissing his petition for total disability benefits. He raises two issues: (1) whether or not the referee's findings are supported by substantial evidence; and (2) whether or not the employer met its burden of proof on the issue of availability of work.
An examination of the record convinces us that the referee's findings are supported by substantial evidence. As to whether or not the employer must meet its burden by showing the existence of specific job openings, rather than by showing the general availability of positions suited for the claimant, we note that a witness, qualified here as a rehabilitation psychologist and vocational rehabilitation specialist, testified that suitable jobs for the claimant existed in the local job market and specified a number of these positions as well as some of the companies willing to hire disabled persons. We believe that this testimony was sufficient. We do not believe that the employer was required under Barrett v. Otis Elevator Co., 431 Pa. 446, 246 A.2d 668 (1968), to show the existence of specific job openings.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 1978, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.