Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Unpublished Dispositionernest F. Wright, Jr., Petitioner, v. Dover Elevator Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,director Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,u.s. Department of Labor, Respondents
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 893 F.2d 400
Jan. 8, 1990
Before WALD, Chief Judge, and STEPHEN F. EDWARDS and SILBERMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This petition for review of an order of the Benefits Review Board was considered on the record and the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 14(c). It is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the case be remanded to the administrative law judge ("ALJ") for explicit consideration of the relevant factors to be examined in determining wage-earning capacity as set forth in Randall v. Comfort Control, Inc., 725 F.2d 791, 797 (D.C.Cir.1984). An examination of these factors is required because the existence of Wright's "work-related medical disability" is undisputed and the evidence regarding his inability to "perform at his pre-injury level" is essentially uncontroverted. Id. at 799.
The ALJ did not discuss the sympathetic employer factor or the open market factor. Similarly, although the ALJ stated that Wright was not "shirking" his duties, the ALJ did not decide whether Wright's apparent inability to perform any of the "heavy work" concededly comprising a portion of his duties as an adjuster militates against regarding his actual wages as a fair indicia of his wage-earning capacity. Nor did the ALJ decide whether Wright's testimony that only by exercising daily is he able to work constituted proof of extraordinary effort on his part.
Although the ALJ was not required to make findings regarding the extent of Wright's disability at the present time, his future prognosis, and possible future loss of wage-earning capacity, the findings in this regard are supported by substantial evidence.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after any disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.