Can workers who continue employment after injury still qualify for permanent total disability? Olsen v. Labor Commission Explained

In Olsen v. Labor Commission, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a worker who continues employment for decades after an industrial injury can still qualify for permanent total disability benefits under the odd-lot doctrine.

George Olsen lost his right arm in a 1963 conveyor belt accident at Utah Concrete Pipe Co. Despite this severe injury, he continued working for the company until his retirement in 1986 at age 62. Nearly twenty years later, Olsen filed for permanent total disability benefits, claiming his industrial injury had prevented him from working since retirement.

The Labor Commission denied benefits, finding that Olsen’s retirement was motivated by factors other than his industrial injury, including his desire to qualify for pension and Social Security benefits, difficulty hiring and training new workers, and required travel for company acquisitions. The Commission concluded Olsen had not established that regular, dependable work was unavailable due to his injury.

On appeal, Olsen challenged the Commission’s factual findings and argued the odd-lot doctrine was misapplied. Under this doctrine, employees are classified as totally and permanently disabled when they “cannot be rehabilitated and even though not in a state of abject helplessness can no longer perform the duties… required in [their] occupation[s].”

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Importantly, the court clarified that continuing to work after an industrial injury does not automatically preclude permanent total disability benefits if the employee demonstrates that continuation required “superhuman efforts” and that no alternative employment is available.

However, Olsen failed to present evidence that he could not be rehabilitated for different work. The court noted that when Olsen worked in California, he had secretarial assistance for reports and worked fewer hours, suggesting alternative employment arrangements were possible.

This decision reinforces that workers’ compensation claimants must prove both their inability to perform their regular occupation and their inability to be rehabilitated for other work to qualify for permanent total disability benefits under the odd-lot doctrine.