This case involves a tricky issue, especially for workers who have a very specific set of skills required for their job. When they are injured and can no longer do that job, is the issue that they are just unable to find a job at that time, or are they truly unemployable?

Harold Hathorn worked for ESCO Corporation as a grinder and injured his right hand in June of 2012. His injury caused him to be diagnosed with DeQuervain’s tenosynovitis in his right hand. It causes pain in the wrist and is often caused by repetitive motions. Dr. James Watson operated on his hand and declared that he had reached maximum medical improvement in October of 2012, releasing him to return to work with restrictions and a one percent permanent medical impairment. Upon his return to work Hathorn did different duties, he largely performed janitorial and maintenance duties as he was no longer supposed to work as a grinder or lift over fifty pounds. He continued to feel pain though, and he saw Dr. Eric Pearson who treated him for pain and gave him a twenty percent permanent medical impairment on October 28^th, 2013. One day Hathorn was asked to drive a forklift as part of his duties and he complied, but his hand became swollen and so Dr. Pearson advised him not to operate forklifts anymore. Several weeks later he was asked to drive a forklift again and so Hathorn asked his supervisor if another employee could do that job. This was reported to his manager and Hathorn was placed on leave and given three days to give them a written work restriction telling ESCO that he should not drive forklifts. He did not give them the restriction and he was let go on November 7^th of 2013 for insubordination.

Hathorn filed a petition with an administrative judge, who debated whether Hathorn’s industrial loss of the use of his right arm was actually greater than his medical impairment rating. A vocational expert testified that Hathorn could no longer work as a grinder but that did not exclude him from other work opportunities, he had shown he could do other jobs when he went back to work at ESCO after his injury. Given Hathorn’s work history the administrative judge awarded Hathorn a forty-three percent industrial loss because of his injury, and said ESCO was responsible for compensating him an additional twenty-three percent medical loss since they had already been compensating him for a twenty percent loss.

Hathorn appealed that award, and the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed that order as it related to compensability due to injury but increased it to fifty percent. Hathorn appealed again, saying he had permanent work restrictions that prevented him from working his usual, pre-injury employment.

The decision was upheld by the Mississippi Court of Appeals. He was able to do other substantial job duties and had worked for almost a year after he was declared to have reached maximum medical improvement. He could no longer work as a grinder, but he testified that he had not been looking at other fields for work. Work in maintenance, security or housekeeping fields would be possible given his work restrictions. Just because he had been unsuccessful in finding another job after he was let go from ESCO did not mean that he was unemployable entirely or that his injury prevented him from working in related fields.

Harold Hathorn v. ESCO Corporation