## Facts

- Dragoslav Avramovic worked for R.C. Moore Transportation, Inc. as a truck driver.
- In October 2003 and November 2003, Avramovic suffered back injuries while working; his condition ultimately required surgery.
- Avramovic returned to work in February 2004 with medical restrictions but stopped working again in March 2004.
- In July 2005, R.C. Moore offered Avramovic a part-time accounting job that required 30 hours per week.
- Avramovic’s physician limited him to 20 hours per week, and Avramovic declined the 30-hour position.
- Avramovic’s employment with R.C. Moore ended in July 2006.
- After losing his job, Avramovic conducted an extensive job search, submitting roughly 300 applications and attending 13 in-person interviews.
- Most of Avramovic’s applications and interviews were for finance-related positions; he applied to about 50 positions outside the finance field.
- A vocational service provider (Expediter Corporation) assisted Avramovic and identified a telephonic job with Information Direct, Inc. (IDI); Avramovic declined that position.
- Avramovic petitioned for total-incapacity benefits or, alternatively, 100% partial-incapacity benefits.
- A Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer found Avramovic sustained a single compensable injury, retained capacity to work 20 hours per week, and had conducted a thorough job search.
- The hearing officer concluded Avramovic did not prove that suitable work was unavailable in the local community (citing his focus on finance jobs), awarded partial-incapacity benefits (less than 100%), and found the IDI position was not a bona fide job offer.

## Issues

1. Whether the hearing officer applied the correct legal test—and explained it sufficiently—when concluding that Avramovic’s work search did not establish entitlement to 100% partial-incapacity benefits based on unavailability of suitable work in the local community.
2. Whether Avramovic’s refusal of the telephonic IDI position required a reduction or discontinuance of benefits under 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A) because the position was a bona fide offer of reasonable employment.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the hearing officer’s determination that the IDI position was not a bona fide offer of reasonable employment under 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A).
- The court vacated the portion of the decision addressing 100% partial-incapacity benefits and remanded for further findings because the decision did not clearly state and apply the governing standard for evaluating whether a work search proves local unavailability of suitable work.
- The case was remanded for clarification and reconsideration consistent with the proper work-search analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A partially incapacitated employee may be awarded 100% partial-incapacity benefits if the employee proves that, despite some remaining work capacity, suitable work within the employee’s medical restrictions and vocational limits is not available in the local community.
- A work-search record can be evidence of local job unavailability, but the factfinder must apply the correct legal standard and explain how the employee’s search efforts meet or fail that standard so appellate review is possible.
- Under 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A), benefits may be reduced or discontinued only if the employer proves the employee refused a bona fide offer of reasonable employment.
- Whether a particular job opportunity is a bona fide offer of reasonable employment is a fact-based determination; it must involve an actual offer of work and must be reasonable in light of the employee’s restrictions and circumstances.

## Conclusion

Avramovic upheld the hearing officer’s finding that the telephonic IDI opportunity was not a bona fide offer triggering § 214(1)(A), but required a remand because the hearing officer did not clearly identify and apply the proper legal standard for deciding whether Avramovic’s job search proved that suitable work was unavailable locally so as to justify 100% partial-incapacity benefits.


Avramovic v. R.C. Moore Transportation, Inc., 954 A.2d 449 (2008)