Math teacher’s vision issues precluded return to work

The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission correctly rejected a school district’s argument that a math teacher could return to work despite vision issues arising from her fall in a school parking lot.

Overview

Claimant suffered a concussion when she fell. She had balance and vision issues. She was awarded medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits. Employer moved to terminate benefits, arguing her neurologist, Kuczma, and optometrist, Mercer, released her to her pre-injury employment.

Kuczma said claimant should not use ladders but opined this should not preclude her from working as a teacher. Mercer found multiple vision issues including “double vision, blurred vision, headaches, and light sensitivity, which were exacerbated by viewing a computer screen. …

“Mercer analyzed potential alternative employment for claimant and imposed certain work restrictions related to computer screen time. The restrictions required a fifteen-minute break for each hour of screen time and provided that claimant should engage in ‘[n]o more than [two] hours of screen time per half day of work.’”

Employer obtained a vocational assessment of claimant’s former work teaching math. Schall, the evaluator, toured the school with Washington, an assistant principal. “Schall saw that the classroom where claimant previously worked was equipped with an interactive white board, also called a Promethean board.

“In a written report, Schall described the white board as ‘technically a screen … used like a blackboard.’ He opined that claimant would be able to perform her pre-injury employment within Dr. Mercer’s restriction to ‘stay[] under the [two] hour limit for both morning and afternoon for computer monitor screen time.’ Schall did not think that Dr. Mercer considered using the white board to count as screen time.

“Schall had never performed an evaluation where the disability involved an employee’s vision, and he did not speak with claimant or observe any other math teachers. At the hearing, he explained that he was only asked to opine about ‘the amount of screen time involved’ in claimant’s job, not whether ‘the restrictions were appropriate.’”

At the hearing, “Washington acknowledged that Dr. Mercer’s limitation on claimant’s screen use included not only computer screens but also the Promethean board. He described the Promethean board as ‘just like a big computer screen’ that ‘sits on the wall,’ and ‘what’s on [a desktop] computer is projected onto the wall.’

“He also addressed non-instructional use of the computer for planning lessons, grading, and taking attendance. He testified that although teachers use computers for these purposes, teachers ‘can be accommodated’ by having someone else, such as a ‘tech secretary,’ input the data.”

The deputy commissioner determined that claimant could return to her former job. The full commission reversed. Employer appealed.

Analysis

“[E]mployer challenges the Commission’s determination that it failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claimant could perform her pre-injury employment as a math teacher.

“In assessing the differences between Dr. Washington’s description of claimant’s pre-injury employment and claimant’s testimony regarding her duties, the Commission found claimant’s testimony more persuasive.

“Although Dr. Washington stated that teachers are not required to use computers, the evidence demonstrated that computer use was encouraged, typical, and often the only method for accomplishing work duties.

“Claimant testified that she taught three eighty-five-minute classes in a row, and for two of the classes, she spent sixty-five minutes – approximately three-quarters of her teaching time – using a screen, either on her computer or the Promethean board. Her classroom did not have a standard blackboard. She also testified that she used the computer for communication and lesson-planning.

“The Commission put little weight on Dr. Washington’s testimony that teachers are not required to use computers and credited claimant’s evidence that computer use was in fact essential for her work duties. Whether an injured employee can return to pre-injury employment requires consideration of how duties were actually, rather than ideally, performed. …

“Therefore, in determining whether claimant could perform her pre-injury job as a math teacher, the Commission did not err in relying on evidence of how computers were actually used, rather than on Dr. Washington’s testimony about how they possibly could be used.

“The Commission also was unpersuaded by Schall’s opinion that claimant could perform her pre-injury duties within Dr. Mercer’s restrictions. Specifically, the Commission found that Schall had never performed an assessment involving a vision disability and had not spoken with claimant or any other teachers about how they actually performed their duties.

“The Commission determined that Schall lacked ‘a complete or accurate understanding of [claimant’s] work duties or the methods she used to perform her pre-injury job.’ Because claimant testified from her own work experience, in contrast to Schall who opined from an information deficit, the Commission’s determination is supported by credible evidence and thus not subject to reweighing or reversal on appeal, despite a conflict with the finding by the deputy commissioner. …

“Employer also contends that claimant failed to rebut Schall’s opinion that she could return to her employment. We reject this argument for multiple reasons. First, the burden was on employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a change in condition justified the termination of claimant’s award. …

“The Commission was free to conclude that employer failed to meet this burden irrespective of any evidence offered by claimant. Additionally, the Commission was free to assess the credibility of claimant’s testimony and find that it outweighed Schall’s. Because that credibility determination is supported by credible evidence, we will not disturb it on appeal.”

Affirmed.

Virginia Beach City Public Schools, et al v. Norman, Record No. 1103-20-1, March 2, 2021. CAV (O’Brien) from the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Comm’n. Robert L. Samuel for appellants, Matthew J. Weinberg for appellee. VLW 021-7-027, 12 pp. Unpublished.