The employer and insurer appeal from the compensation judge’s approval of the employee’s proposed retraining plan leading to a two-year associate in applied science (AAS) degree in histotechnology from Argosy University.  We affirm as modified.

Joy A. Christensen, the employee, sustained a personal injury to the cervical spine on December 19, 2005, in the course and scope of her employment at Northwest Airlines Corporation, the employer.  The employee began working for Northwest Airlines in December 1997.  At the time of the injury, the employee was working as an equipment service employee (ESE).  Her job duties included loading and unloading baggage and freight and deicing planes.  The parties stipulated the employee’s weekly wage on the date of injury was $925.91.

In June 2006, the employee underwent surgery in the nature of a cervical spine discectomy and fusion.  After a period of recovery, the employee was released to light-duty work that was accommodated by the employer on a temporary basis.  The employee was eventually assigned permanent sedentary to light-duty work restrictions including no lifting over 25 pounds, avoidance of static neck positioning, and limited keyboarding.  On October 26, 2007, the employee was informed by the employer that no permanent work was available, and the employee was terminated from her employment with Northwest Airlines shortly thereafter.

From October 2007 through August 2009, the employee conducted a job search with the assistance of Jean Murray, a qualified rehabilitation counselor (QRC), and a job placement specialist.  The job search resulted in no permanent employment offers.  On January 12, 2009, the employee filed a claim petition seeking approval of a retraining plan leading to a two-year associate degree from Argosy University as a histotechnician.^[1]

A vocational assessment report was prepared by Michael Kahnke in April 2009 at the request of the employer and insurer.  Mr. Kahnke recommended against the proposed retraining plan, stating the training was not appropriate for the employee and the costs were excessive.  If retraining in histotechnology was found appropriate, he proposed, in the alternative, the histotechnology program at North Hennepin Community College (NHCC), which would be less costly.

Following a hearing, the compensation judge found that retraining was a reasonable vocational alternative for the employee; that the histotechnology program at Argosy University was compatible with the employee’s interests and aptitudes; that the employee was reasonably likely to satisfy the academic requirements for a two year histotechnician degree; and that successful completion of the histotechnology program at Argosy University was likely to lead to reasonably attainable employment that would produce an economic status as close as possible to that which the employee would have enjoyed without disability.  The employer and insurer appeal.

The compensation judge concluded the evidence failed to establish the histotechnology program was physically appropriate, explaining the record was silent regarding whether neck positioning requirements were considered in developing the retraining plan.  The parties agree there was never any dispute regarding the physical appropriateness of the histotechnology program or employment in the histotechnology field based on the employee’s work restrictions.  This issue was simply not before the compensation judge.  Finding 12 is, therefore, vacated and the findings and order are modified accordingly.

The employer and insurer argue that although retraining may be a reasonable vocational alternative for the employee, retraining in histotechnology is not reasonable or appropriate for this employee applying the factors set forth in Poole v. Farmstead Foods, Inc., 42 W.C.D. 970 (W.C.C.A. 1989).

Retraining an injured worker in another occupation may be appropriate if it will materially assist the employee in restoring her impaired earning capacity.  An award of retraining benefits is not automatic but must be supported by competent evidence.  Norby v. Arctic Enters., Inc., 305 Minn. 519, 521, 232 N.W.2d 773, 775, 28 W.C.D. 48, 50 (1975).  In evaluating a proposed retraining plan, the compensation judge should consider (1) the reasonableness of retraining compared to job placement activities; (2) the likelihood the employee has the interest and ability to succeed in the proposed course of study; (3) whether retraining is likely to produce an economic status as close as possible to that which the employee would have enjoyed without the disability; and (4) whether the retraining is likely to result in reasonably attainable employment.  (Poole at 978.)  The appropriateness and reasonableness of a proposed retraining plan is a fact issue for the compensation judge.  Erickson v. City of St. Paul, 67 W.C.D. 516 (W.C.C.A. 2007).

(a)  Reasonableness of retraining compared to job placement activities.  The employer and insurer do not, on appeal, contest the compensation judge’s finding that retraining is a reasonable vocational alternative for the employee. Nor do they argue that further job placement activities should be undertaken.^[2]

(b)  Interest and ability to succeed in the proposed course of study.  There is no doubt the employee has a genuine interest in the histotechnology program.  The employer and insurer, however, contend that the employee does not have the academic ability or educational background to successfully complete the program.  They assert the histotechnology program is an academically aggressive program that requires completion of college algebra and chemistry courses and that the employee’s vocational testing scores reflect a low aptitude in math and science.  We are not persuaded.

The employee obtained her GED at the age of 19 after dropping out of school in the tenth grade.  She then enrolled in and completed a two-year associate in applied science (AAS) degree in Aviation Operations, Management and Services at Anoka Ramsey Community College.

Vocational testing was completed prior to exploring retraining in December 2007.  As noted by the employer and insurer, the employee’s scores in the General Aptitude Test Battery were below average in numerical aptitude and in general learning ability.  The employee’s QRC recommended remedial math and suggested the employee enroll in adult basic education to prepare for a return to school.  The employee met with a counselor at Hennepin County community education and registered for classes to improve her math and computer skills.

QRC Murray testified the employee was likely to succeed academically.  Ms. Murray noted the employee was a very mature, hard-working individual, and questioned the results of the general learning ability tests, observing the employee had been out of school for a while and had not completed one of the tests.  In Ms. Murray’s opinion, the employee has demonstrated, by her previous successful completion of a post-secondary associate degree program and by attending adult basic education, that she can succeed in a formal course of study.

While noting the employee’s lower scores on some of the vocational tests and that the proposed program requires college chemistry and algebra, Mr. Kahnke acknowledged the employee was “brushing up” on her math skills.  He further testified the general learning ability test was “pretty vague” and stated he would prefer to rely on more exact numbers like an IQ number.  (T. at 147, 150.)  Mr. Kahnke additionally testified that he believed the employee “is the kind of person that would do her best if given the opportunity to go to school.”  (T. at 181.)

The compensation judge accepted the opinion of QRC Murray and found the employee was reasonably likely to satisfy the academic requirements for a two-year histotechnician degree.  There is adequate evidence of record to support this conclusion.

The employer and insurer further argue the employee cannot meet physical requirements necessary to complete the program or do the job of a histotechnician.  The appellants point to the employee’s low average score with respect to finger dexterity and manual dexterity and assert these scores are clearly incompatible with the job duties of a histotechnician.  We disagree.

Ms. Murray stated the employee’s strong aptitudes in motor coordination, form perception, clerical perception, and spatial aptitude suggest the employee is a viable candidate for the occupation.^[3]  The QRC expressed no concern about the employee’s finger and manual dexterity scores.  When questioned on this point, Mr. Kahnke could not form an opinion, stating he would have to observe the job to see exactly what was required and was not comfortable basing an opinion solely on a written job description.  There is simply no vocational evidence to support the appellants’ assertion.

The appellants additionally contend the retraining plan indicates that color discrimination is necessary for a histotechnician and the retraining report states the employee may be “underqualified” based on scores relative to color vision.  This reference was made in the context of the QRC’s transferable skills analysis.  Ms. Murray explained the category of “underqualified” in this context describes only the employee’s current skill level given her previous work experience without further training.  It is clear the “score” has nothing to do with the employee’s physical aptitudes.  We, accordingly, affirm on this factor.

(c)  Likely to produce an economic status as close as possible to that which the employee would have enjoyed without the disability.  The employer and insurer assert there is no real probability the employee would achieve an economic status similar to her pre-injury wage in a histotechnician position.  They point out the employee made, on average, more than $900.00 per week at the employer.  At $17.00 to $18.00 per hour for a 40 hour work week, the employee would make only $680.00 to $720.00 per week.

We note, first, the statute does not require a return to a “similar” pre-injury wage, but, rather, an economic status “as close as possible” to that which the employee would have enjoyed without the disability.  Minn. Stat. § 176.102, subd. 1.(b).  In this case, the employee’s hourly wage at the time of injury was around $19.96 an hour.  Ms. Murray testified the entry level wage for a histotechnician is $17.00 to $18.00 per hour.  According to Mr. Kahnke, in 2005 the median hourly wage for histotechnicians was $18.50 to $20.86.  While the employee’s anticipated earnings may be somewhat less than she was earning at Northwest Airlines, a job search has produced nothing that would provide higher earnings, nor have the appellants proposed different retraining that would produce a higher wage.  We decline to reverse on this basis.

(d)  Likely to result in reasonably attainable employment.  Finally, the appellants contend that substantial evidence does not support the judge’s determination that retraining will result in reasonably attainable employment.  They argue the evidence submitted at the hearing compels the conclusion that there is no real prospect of employment in the field of histotechnology.

As is frequently the case, the evidence on this issue was conflicting.  QRC Murray conducted a labor market survey.  Her research indicted the projected growth rate of the histotechnology field in Minnesota is anticipated to be 16 to 17%.  A representative from Mayo Clinic stated there was a shortage of histotechnologists across the nation and that overall the job is in high demand.  Lab Corporation had 230 openings for histotechnician/lab positions nationwide.  The employee testified that she is willing to relocate anywhere.  Ms. Murray concluded the labor market looked very good in the histotechnology field, and that, based on her labor market research and conversations with labs and schools, she believed the employee would have an excellent ability to find a job in histotechnology.

Mr. Kahnke also did a labor market survey.  He reported the U.S. Department of Labor & Industry Occupational Outlook Handbook 2008-2009 indicated that faster than average employment growth and excellent job opportunities were expected generally in clinical laboratory technologist and technician fields.  A representative from Park Nicollet laboratories services stated that histotechnology is a good field to get into.  A representative from North Hennepin Community College, however, stated that histotechnology is a small field and with the current economy he did not foresee a lot of hiring for such positions in the twin cities metropolitan area.  The representative acknowledged that nationwide there are more jobs in this field.  Mr. Kahnke reported that histotechnology seemed to be a relatively new field and there appeared to be few job openings in the area for histotechnicians.  He opined that, with no medical background, it may be difficult for the employee to obtain this kind of work.

The compensation judge found that successful completion of the proposed histotechnology program was likely to lead to reasonably attainable employment.  There is sufficient evidence of record to support this determination, and we, accordingly, affirm.

The appellants argue the compensation judge erred as a matter of law in concluding that retraining in the histotechnology program at Argosy University is appropriate and reasonable.  The employer and insurer assert that, if retraining is appropriate, the employee should be required to attend the less expensive histotechnician program at North Hennepin Community College, citing Varda v. Northwest Airlines Corp., 692 N.W.2d 440, 65 W.C.D. 92 (Minn. 2004).

In a line of cases beginning with Kunferman v. Ford Motor Company, 55 W.C.D. 464 (W.C.C.A. 1996), and including Varda v. Northwest Airlines Corp., 65 W.C.D. 82 (W.C.C.A. 2004), this court has held that where alternative retraining is proposed, the compensation judge must consider the proposed alternative in light of the factors listed in Poole, and compare the plans, considering the relative costs, duration, and effectiveness of the programs in returning the employee to an economic status as close as possible to that enjoyed by the employee without the disability.  See also Rowbottom v. LTV Steel Mining slip op. (W.C.C.A. January 27, 2003).

In Varda, the employee sought approval of a four-year nursing degree through the College of St. Scholastica (CSS).  The employer and insurer argued the four-year program was not necessary to restore the employee’s earning capacity and that a two-year registered nursing degree at Hibbing Community College (HCC) would produce the same results.  This court concluded, first, that adequate information had been submitted by the employer and insurer to allow the judge to compare the two programs, and, second, that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the four-year program was reasonably required to restore the employee’s lost earning capacity.  This court held the employee failed to establish she would gain any significant economic advantage by attending the four-year CSS program rather than the two-year HCC program sufficient to outweigh the immense additional cost ($144,388.00 versus about $9,500.00).  The supreme court affirmed, stating that in comparing one retraining program to another, the court must consider the sufficiency of the evidence while examining the purpose for retraining benefits, that is, restoring the employee’s earning capacity.  The court stated the critical question is whether the more costly program is necessary to increase the likelihood of reemployment.  Where both retraining programs are appropriate and reasonable, the deciding factor in determining which program is necessary becomes the cost.  Varda at 444-45, 65 W.C.D. at 97-98.

In this case, the anticipated costs for the Argosy University program are approximately $60,000.00.  This includes about $37,000.00 for tuition, lab and other fees, liability insurance, and student activity fees; $3,000 for books and supplies; and nearly $20,000.00 in estimated mileage and parking costs.  Mr. Kahnke reported that tuition at NHCC, including course work, student life, and parking, was $154.00 per credit for a total tuition cost of $9,246.00.  No information was provided regarding the cost of other expenses such as books, supplies, or lab fees, or a dollar estimate for mileage expense.

QRC Murray testified she did consider the NHCC histotechnician program as an alternative for the employee.  In recommending the Argosy University program, Ms. Murray noted that Argosy has open enrollment with varying starting dates; NHCC starts in the fall session and offers night classes only.  Argosy has had, on average, 18-20 students per graduating class and has been in existence about five years.  NHCC had just started their program the previous year, and the first graduating class had three students.  The QRC testified further that NHCC requires two separate applications.  A student must first apply for admission to NHCC and then apply for admission to the specific program.  Ms. Murray stated there was no guaranty, even if the employee was accepted at NHCC, of admission to the histotechnology program.  The Argosy program includes a clinical internship component.  An exhibit was submitted showing internship placements, graduation, and places of employment for Argosy students between 2006 and 2009.  Ms. Murray stated that Argosy has a placement rate of about 99 percent.  The employee testified that Argosy University has a job placement counselor that does job exploration and helps students identify jobs and set up interviews.

The employer and insurer did not submit a formal retraining plan for the North Hennepin Community College program.  Mr. Kahnke testified he contacted the director of the NHCC histotechnology program by phone and included the information he obtained in his vocational assessment report.  He asserted the course work was similar, but did not get a list of courses from either school, testifying he was basing his conclusion on the fact that both programs result in an AAS histotechnology degree.  Mr. Kahnke did not know anything about the two application process, but did agree that NHCC would not accept anyone in the histotechnology program until they completed college algebra and two levels of chemistry.  He agreed that Argosy University did not have similar prerequisites.  He did not know whether NHCC had an internship or clinical component.  Mr. Kahnke acknowledged the NHCC program was small and relatively new, and had no information about placement for students who completed the NHCC histotechnology program.

QRC Murray testified the employee has taken entrance examinations at Argosy University and the school would accept her in the histotechnology program.  Ms. Murray testified the NHCC program would be “a big gamble.  If we’re requesting a third party payer to pay for school we want to make sure that if someone is admitted into the school, that they’re going to be attending the approved program, rather than starting a process and then it being open-ended.”  (T. at 48.)

The compensation judge concluded that the Argosy University program, as compared to the program offered at NHCC, was appropriate and reasonable, based on the short existence of the NHCC program, the lack of useful graduation and placement results, and the testimony of QRC Murray.  Unlike the Varga case, where the record showed that both CSS and HCC had 100% placement rates for their students, the employer and insurer submitted no placement information or other evidence regarding employment prospects for students in the NHCC program.  Nor was information submitted documenting the total costs of the NHCC program for the purposes of comparison.

The critical question, the supreme court stated, is whether the more costly program is “necessary to increase the likelihood of re-employment.”  Varga at 445, 65 W.C.D. at 98.  In this case, the employer and insurer failed to submit evidence to support their contention that the NHCC program would be equally effective in returning the employee to employment or that the difference in cost is so substantial as to outweigh the apparent advantage of enrollment in the Argosy University program.  The compensation judge’s conclusion that the proposed histotechnology program at Argosy University is appropriate and reasonable is supported by substantial evidence in the record as submitted.  We, accordingly, affirm the decision of the compensation judge, as modified, and approve the retraining plan as proposed.