Background

In Mack v. Menard, Inc., the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals addressed whether an injured employee was entitled to an on-site job analysis as part of their rehabilitation plan. The employee, a department manager, suffered significant finger injuries while at work, resulting in ongoing functional limitations and work restrictions.

The Dispute

Following his workplace injury, the employee’s QRC  recommended an on-site job analysis to assess whether the employee could safely perform his regular duties with the restrictions imposed by his injury. The QRC’s request was based on ongoing symptoms—pain, limited mobility, and decreased sensation in the affected fingers—which raised concerns about the employee’s ability to meet the physical demands of his position.

Menard, Inc. and its insurer objected to the recommended on-site job analysis. Their primary arguments included:

• Sufficiency of Existing Information about Suitability of Job: Menard, Inc. argued that enough information was already available regarding the employee’s job duties and physical capabilities to assess its suitability, making an on-site analysis redundant.
• Cost and Disruption: The employer raised concerns about the potential cost and operational disruption associated with conducting an on-site job analysis.

Despite these objections, the compensation judge found the QRC’s recommendation persuasive, noting that no contrary vocational expert evidence was presented by the employer or insurer. The judge concluded that an on-site job analysis was necessary to objectively evaluate the employee’s ability to perform his job with the current restrictions and to identify any reasonable accommodations that might facilitate a safe return to work.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

The Court affirmed the compensation judge’s award of an on-site job analysis, emphasizing several critical points:

• Credible Expert Support: The employee’s need for continued work restrictions was supported by both the employee’s testimony and the qualified rehabilitation consultant (QRC). Notably, the employer and insurer did not present any contrary vocational expert evidence. The Court noted that the employer’s witness was just a supervisor who had no vocational rehabilitation training, thereby implying that their testimony was not dispositive to the dispute.
• Purpose of On-Site Job Analysis: The Court recognized that an on-site job analysis is a vital tool for evaluating the actual demands of the employee’s position and identifying reasonable accommodations. This analysis ensures that the employee can safely and effectively return to suitable work, tailored to their current abilities.

Practical Implications for Employers and Insurers

• Engage Vocational Experts if you are going to dispute an On-Site Job Analysis: The testimony of a QRC can be decisive. Employers and insurers must consider retaining their own vocational rehabilitation experts if they wish to challenge the recommendation for an on-site job analysis. Lay testimony from employer representatives will be insufficient to overcome the necessity for an on-site job analysis.