BEFORE THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
LARRY J BLAISE, Applicant
BERLINER & MARX, Employer
BERLINER & MARX, Insurer
WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECISION
Claim No. 90024198
Pursuant to the timely petition for review filed by the respondent in the above- captioned matter, the commission has considered the petition and all relief requested. The commission has reviewed the applicable records and evidence and finds that the administrative law judge's findings and order are supported thereby. The commission therefore adopts the findings and order of the administrative law judge as its own.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Labor and Industry Review Commission does
ORDER
That the findings and order of the administrative law judge are hereby affirmed.
Dated and mailed October 6, 1993
ND § 5.36
Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman
Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner
James R. Meier, Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The respondent has petitioned for commission review of the findings and order of the administrative law judge. The commission has reviewed the entire record in this matter and believes that the administrative law judge's finding of fact and legal conclusions are supported by the record and therefore affirms such findings and conclusions.
The commission agrees with the administrative law judge that sec. 102.56 (2), Stats., does not apply in this case because the applicant was no longer working for the respondent at the time of hearing. However, the applicant's return to work with the respondent until the respondent closed down, applicant's subsequent employment for another employer and voluntary termination of that employment, are all factors to be considered in determining applicant's potential wage loss.
The commission disagrees with the respondent's contention that the administrative law judge failed to apply the factors set forth in sec. 102. 56 (1), Stats. The administrative law judge clearly considered such factors but placed particular emphasis on certain factors such as the appearance of the applicant's scar and the fact that applicant had voluntarily terminated employment with Conagra.
The applicant was at the time of injury and is today a young man. The number of years he has remaining in the work force increases the likelihood and the amount of his potential wage loss. The applicant's disfigurement is below his left elbow to his left wrist. This location is one exposed in the normal course of employment and likely to be exposed in occupations in which the applicant is suited. The applicant has only a high school education and experience in factory and labor positions. He is likely to find future employment in factory, labor and even service positions. These are positions for which he would be suited given his education and prior work history.
The commission realizes that applicant's scar may be hidden if he wears a long sleeve shirt. However, the commission does not believe that occupations for which the applicant is suited are ones that, in the most part and for the majority of time, utilize long sleeves unless applicant chose to wear such long sleeves simply to cover his scar. The commission has considered the fact that long sleeves will cover the applicant's scar but, again, it is only one factor in the commission's review of this case.
Finally, the commission notes, that the scar has been noted by one potential employer and customers of another individual for whom the applicant was working. It is rare that potential employers will inform an individual that the individual is not being hired based on a scar, but the fact that the employer notes the scar in employment interviews increases the likelihood that the existence of the disfigurement will impact on future employment.
For the above reasons, and reasons set forth in the findings and order of the administrative law judge, the commission affirms such findings and order.
cc:
ATTORNEY DAVID L RESNICK
KELLY & HAUS
ATTORNEY JEFFREY J STRANDE
TERWILLIGER WAKEEN PIEHLER & CONWAY SC
[ Search Decisions ] - [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]