The employer and insurer appeal from the compensation judge’s finding that the employee is permanently and totally disabled.  We affirm.

The employee, Donnie Worrell, was born in 1952 in Goldsboro, North Carolina.  While in high school, he worked part time delivering laundry for a dry cleaner.  After he completed high school, he started college at North Carolina State University.  During college, he held a summer job as a file clerk for an insurance company, and one for UPS filling trucks with gasoline.  The employee failed to complete college because he was convicted of a drug-related felony and incarcerated for three years, from about 1974 to 1977.

After he was released from prison, the employee was employed full time for approximately two years as an EMT at an ambulance company owned by his family.  After that business was sold, the employee worked for about a year in a liquor store his family owned in Washington, D.C.  The employee completed tractor/trailer drivers’ training in 1984, and then worked as an over-the-road truck driver, maintaining his residence in North Carolina.

On May 13, 2009, while working for a Minnesota employer, Eickhoff Enterprises, the employee sustained a work injury to his right shoulder.  The employer admitted liability for the injury and commenced payment of temporary total disability benefits.  An MRI of the right shoulder on June 6, 2009, showed a possible small full-thickness tear involving the anterior supraspinatus region, with elements of tendonitis and possible retraction of the torn component.  The scan was also suggestive of a tear involving most of the anterior labrum.  However, the scan images were hampered by motion and lacked sufficient detail for a definite reading.  The employee underwent right shoulder arthroscopic surgery with subacrominal decompression and mini open rotator cuff repair on July 17, 2009.  Following the surgery he was provided with physical therapy.

In October 2009, the employee was given a telephonic rehabilitation consultation with a Minnesota QRC, Patty Blackwell, and a rehabilitation plan was prepared on November 5, 2009, which envisioned medical management and a coordination of the employee’s return to work.  At that time, the employee was hopeful that he would be able to return to work in the job he had on the date of injury.

The employee ultimately failed to recover following the 2009 surgery.  On April 6, 2010, an MR arthrogram with contrast revealed a full thickness rotator cuff tear at the supraspinatus tendon, retracted proximally.  There were severe, nearly full-thickness tears evident at the infraspinatus and subscapularis tendons.  A severe, nearly full-thickness tear was seen at the proximal portion of the biceps tendon, and anterior and posterior labral tears were also suspected.  There were degenerative changes at the AC joint and glenohumeral joint, with chondromalacia.

A second surgery to address the shoulder condition was done on June 15, 2010, consisting of shoulder arthroscopy, subacromial decompression, possible SLAP repair, biceps tenotomy and rotator cuff repair.  That surgery was also unsuccessful.  As of the date of hearing, the employee’s physicians now consider no further surgery to be appropriate.  Instead, the employee has been told by his physicians that he will eventually require shoulder replacement surgery.  The employee was also advised that a shoulder replacement has a relatively short effective duration, and that because of his relatively young age he should defer shoulder replacement as long as possible.

A functional capacities evaluation in October 2010 resulted in recommendations that the employee should be limited to light/medium work with occasional lifting up to 24 pounds, frequent lifting to 12 pounds, and constant lifting at no more than five pounds.  On October 25, 2010, the employee was released for light to medium duty work by his physicians pursuant to the FCE recommendations.  The employee testified at the hearing May 9, 2012, that he did not agree with the recommended restrictions and stated that, for example, he did not think he would be able to lift five pounds regularly.  He testified that, during the FCE evaluation, he had tried to do more than was really comfortable for him.  He also testified that his shoulder had gotten worse since the evaluation was performed.  The parties stipulated that the employee’s permanent restrictions preclude a return to work as an over-the-road truck driver.

After his release to work, the focus of the employee’s vocational rehabilitation changed to job search assistance.  Since the employee lived in North Carolina, Ms. Blackwell arranged for 90 days of vocational placement and job search services to be provided by a North Carolina job placement specialist, Ron Alford.  Mr. Alford first met with the employee on November 15, 2010.  Based on a computer analysis of the employee’s work restrictions in the context of his 25-year history of work as an over-the-road truck driver, Mr. Alford concluded that the employee had minimal to no transferable skills.  None of the occupations for which his skills might have some transferability, such as delivery truck driver, chauffer, car rental deliverer or loading inspector, were available in his labor market.  Mr. Alford concluded that the employee “would benefit from vocational services; to be able to be marketable for a suitable job, he will need to complete some specific skill enhancement training for at least a two year time period [community college].”  He noted that the employee was “approaching the end of a typical working career at 58 years old; as well, he is a convicted felon and was incarcerated for three years.  These are not barriers that can be changed and will certainly negatively impact his ability to obtain any job that will offer him wages approaching his previous weekly wages.”

Ms. Blackwell instructed Mr. Alford to begin job placement services.  A 90-day job search was initiated on November 30, 2010, with assistance being provided to the employee in a “direct placement” approach in which Mr. Alford provided leads to the employee for follow up and the employee was also expected to identify and apply for jobs on his own.  The job placement plan called for the employee to search for work five days per week, with a target of one to two applications daily, and a goal of one to two interviews weekly, if available.  The employee was also expected to follow up on job leads immediately.  Blank job logs were sent to the employee, and the employee visited the public library to learn to use their computers to search for jobs online.  The employee was provided with some initial job leads and applied for an administrative assistant position and a bus driver job.

On January 20, 2011, Mr. Alford reported that during the current week he had been unable to identify any job listings for which the employee was qualified.  The employee had been “knocking on doors” looking for work.  On January 26, 2011, Mr. Alford reported that four leads had been identified and sent to the employee.  He noted that the employee had not been called in for an interview by any prospective employer so far, and opined that “[o]ne of the barriers may be his lack of direct experience and the other is probably his previous criminal record.”

On February 8, 2011, Mr. Alford noted that he provided the employee with information on two positions in sales and customer service and a light industrial assembly worker job, which the employee agreed to follow up on as soon as possible.  The employee had also “been networking with some friends about jobs and was considering trying to open up his own small business.  No decision at this point as to the kind of business, but thoughts of something in the recreation field.”

Later that month, the employee told Mr. Alford that “he was involved in a three way phone conference recently with his lawyer and the other party and that his case was being settled.”  Mr. Alford contacted the insurer’s account representative for instructions.  He was told that the case was scheduled for mediation on February 21, 2011, but had not been settled yet, and that he should continue job placement activity.

The mediation was postponed for two weeks due to severe weather in Minneapolis.  On March 1, 2011, an addendum to the rehabilitation plan was completed to extend job search for an additional 30 days.  On March 9, 2011, Mr. Alford received a letter from the employee’s attorney requesting consideration of a retraining plan.  When he next talked with the employee on March 15, Mr. Alford asked the employee whether he was interested in participating in a retraining program.  In one of his periodic reports, Mr. Alford stated that the employee responded that “. . . he was not interested, but wanted to settle his case and get on with his life.  He stated that he had a job interview scheduled for the 17th of March . . . mediation for his case was set for 3-31-2011.”

Despite the additional 30 days of job placement and job search activity, the employee remained unsuccessful at finding a job.  In his vocational closure report, dated March 28, 2011, Mr. Alford wrote that

In deposition testimony, Mr. Alford noted that the employee had fully cooperated with rehabilitation efforts.  In his opinion, four months of job search had been a sufficient period of time to determine whether the employee was likely to find work without additional training.  He noted that the employee had minimal to no transferable skills, and that he had considered it unlikely even at the outset of the job search process that the employee would be able to find work within his restrictions.  He testified that, during the time he was involved in the case, he had not been instructed by either party to try and get the employee involved in training.  In his view, computer skill training would merely be an initial step at improving the chances that the employee could qualify for some kind of job that might be available within his restrictions.  He also stated that the employee would probably need some remedial education before even getting involved in a retraining program that would provide even a diploma or certificate, let alone an associate degree or higher degree level.  He also testified that the employee’s hesitation about retraining did not actually seem to constitute a refusal to participate in retraining, if it were offered; rather, he testified that “we just never got to that point that we could consider a specific program.”

In April 2011 QRC Blackwell amended the employee’s rehabilitation plan to “explore retraining.”  However, in May, 2011, Ms. Blackwell left Minnesota and was no longer on the file.  QRC services were not resumed until some time after June, 2011, when the employee was referred to QRC Debra Bourgeois.

On May 2, 2011 the employee filed a claim petition seeking benefits for permanent total disability beginning on February 22, 2011.  The employer and insurer answered on May 6, 2011, denying that the employee was entitled to payment of permanent total disability benefits.

The employee’s new QRC, Debra Bourgeois, was first given approval to begin vocational testing by the insurer’s claim representative in August 2011.  She subsequently spoke with Mr. Alford by telephone about utilizing his services in conducting the vocational evaluation, since the employee continued to reside in North Carolina.  For reasons that are not altogether clear in the record before us, arrangements were not completed until some time in January 2012.  Vocational aptitude and interest testing was conducted on January 24, 2012.  The employee scored at significantly below average levels in verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, abstract reasoning and scholastic aptitude^[1].  He was above the average range in spelling and language usage.  Perceptual speed and accuracy were average.

After reviewing the employee’s background, job history, test scores, job search records and medical restrictions, Ms. Bourgeois reported to the insurer on March 29, 2012 that, in her opinion, the employee was unlikely to return to suitable, gainful employment.  She did not recommend formal retraining as likely to be cost effective in light of the employee’s age, test scores, work history, and the fact that he had a criminal record.  She concluded that the employee was “most likely permanently and totally disabled.”

The employee was interviewed on the telephone on April 24, 2012 by L. David Russell, a vocational consultant, for purposes of an independent vocational opinion.  Mr. Russell also reviewed the employee’s medical and vocational records and conducted a brief labor market survey.  In his report, dated April 26, 2012, and in subsequent deposition testimony, Mr. Russell disagreed that the employee was permanently totally disabled.  In his view, the job search conducted with the assistance of Mr. Alford in 2010 and 2011 had been largely superficial, and the period of job search had been too short to test whether the employee could find work.  He was also troubled that there was no indication in the records that Mr. Alford had independently verified that the employee had actually performed the specific job search activities the employee reported in his job logs.  In his opinion, the employee was still employable, but had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market.

The employee’s claim for permanent total disability benefits came on for hearing before a compensation judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings on May 9, 2012.  Following the hearing, the compensation judge found that the employee was permanently and totally disabled.  The employer and insurer appeal.

Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 5(2), defines permanent total disability as any “injury which totally and permanently incapacitates the employee from working at an occupation which brings the employee an income.”  The statute further provides that “totally and permanently incapacitated” means that the employee’s physical disability in combination with the requisite level of permanent partial disability causes the employee to be “unable to secure anything more than sporadic employment resulting in an insubstantial income.”  Id., subd. 5.  “A person is totally disabled if his physical condition, in combination with his age, training and experience, and the type of work available in the community, causes him to be unable to secure anything more than sporadic employment resulting in insubstantial income.”  Schulte v. C.H. Peterson Constr. Co., 278 Minn. 79, 83, 153 N.W.2d 130, 133-34, 24 W.C.D. 290, 295 (1967).  “Permanent total disability is primarily dependent on an employee’s vocational potential rather than his physical condition.”  Thompson v. Layne of Minn., 50 W.C.D. 84, 100 (W.C.C.A. 1993); O’Neil v. J Craft, Inc., No. WC12-5409 (W.C.C.A. Nov. 21, 2012).

The compensation judge found that the employee was permanently and totally disabled.  The appellants contend the evidence favoring the employee’s claims in this case was wholly insufficient to sustain the employee’s burden of proof.

We note, first, that in reaching his findings, the compensation judge accepted the expert opinions of Debra Bourgeois and Ron Alford, and expressly rejected the opinion of the appellants’ expert, L. David Russell.  It is the compensation judge’s responsibility, as trier of fact, to resolve conflicts in expert testimony.  Nord v. City of Cook, 360 N.W.2d 337, 342, 37 W.C.D. 364, 372 (Minn. 1985).  The issue of whether an employee has met the burden of proving permanent total disability is a question of fact for the compensation judge.  McClish v. Pan-O-Gold Baking Co., 336 N.W.2d 538, 541, 36 W.C.D. 133, 138 (Minn. 1983).  The expert opinions of Ms. Bourgeois and Mr. Alford provide substantial evidentiary support for the compensation judge’s determination. The appellants, however, argue that the underlying facts of the case were such that a contrary result was required, regardless of these opinions.

The employer and insurer contend that the employee’s job search during the period while he was provided with vocational placement assistance was insufficient in duration to demonstrate the employee’s inability to obtain suitable gainful employment.  They also argue that the employee’s job search activities as shown on the job logs on that period were suspect, as they were not independently verified.

Both vocational experts relied upon by the compensation judge addressed these concerns and stated  that the duration of job placement and job search efforts, and the entire lack of any results obtained, adequately demonstrated the futility of a job search, given the employee’s acknowledged impediments to reemployment.  The employee testified that he had in fact made the contacts shown in his job logs, and this was a matter of witness credibility which the compensation judge resolved in the employee’s favor.  It is not the role of this court to evaluate the credibility and probative value of witness testimony and to choose different inferences from the evidence than the compensation judge.  Krotzer v. Browning-Ferris/Woodlake Sanitation Serv., 459 N.W.2d 509, 513, 43 W.C.D. 254, 260-61 (Minn. 1990).

In any event, a diligent job search is not an absolute prerequisite to a finding of permanent total disability.  See Boryca v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar, 487 N.W.2d 876, 879, 47 W.C.D. 136, 142 (Minn. 1992).  A job search is not required where other evidence in the record establishes the disability, as when the medical and vocational evidence sufficiently demonstrates that a job search would be futile.  Scott v. Southview Chevrolet Co. , 267 N.W.2d 185, 188-189, 30 W.C.D. 426, 432 (Minn. 1978) (citations omitted); see also Atkinson v. Goodhue County Co-op Elec. Ass’n, 55 W.C.D. 150, 160 (W.C.C.A. 1996) summarily aff’d (Minn. Sept. 23, 1996) (“There is no requirement that an injured employee affirmatively seek and be denied employment where such a search would be futile.  The fact that the employee did not seek post-injury employment goes only to the evidentiary weight of his claim that he is totally disabled.”).  The opinions of Ms. Bourgeois and Mr. Alford were based primarily on the employee’s medical restrictions, lack of transferable skills, limited range of experience, age and criminal history.  It is clear from their testimony and reports that they did not think the employee would be able to find work through a job search, regardless of the number of job search contacts or the duration of the search, without lengthy retraining.

In light of the vocational suggestions made in 2010 that the employee could benefit from retraining, the employer and insurer next argue that the employee essentially withdrew from the labor market by a refusal to consider retraining, and that permanent total disability should have been denied.  The evidence supporting the appellants’ argument on this point does not support this argument.

The employer and insurer point to Mr. Alford’s notation in a March, 2011 report that the employee “was not interested” in retraining, and just “wanted to settle his case and get on with his life.”  On the other hand, we note that Mr. Alford testified that the employee had never refused to consider retraining, and that his ambivalence about retraining seemed to him to stem mostly from his apprehension about going back to school, which Mr. Alford did not find to be unusual for an older worker who had been out of school for twenty years. Mr. Alford also testified that the insurer had not asked him to follow up on his recommendation that the employee obtain skills enhancement training and possibly attend a longer program at a community college.  In addition, Mr. Alford testified that no specific program had ever been discussed.  Further, Ms. Bourgeois testified the employer and insurer were opposed to the idea of retraining at the time she took over the file. . Ms. Bourgeois also stated that neither skills training classes nor retraining were likely to be cost effective given the employee’s age, vocational test results, work history and criminal record.

The compensation judge made specific findings in which he reviewed this issue at length and determined that “it was not the employee’s fault that he did not enter a computer training course or a continuation education course at the community college level” and that the employee had at all times fully cooperated with rehabilitation.  There is adequate evidence supporting the judge’s findings on this point.

Finally, the employer and insurer argue that a finding of permanent total disability is premature.  They cite two cases in which permanent total disability was found to be premature where recommendations for retraining or other reasonable vocational options had not yet been followed, Avery v. Farmstead Foods/Seaboard Corp., 60 W.C.D. 204 (W.C.C.A. 2000), and LaFlamme v. Floe Int’l, slip op. (W.C.C.A. April 23, 1999).  In both those cases, however, we affirmed an express or implied finding to that effect made by the compensation judge, a finding that is here absent.  We have stated in a number of decisions that an affirmance by this court of a compensation judge’s finding of fact is of limited precedential value.  Regan v. VOA National Housing, 61 W.C.D. 142 (W.C.C.A. 2000); Larson v. Hampton Care Ctr., No. WC04-245 (W.C.C.A. Jan. 20, 2005).  We find nothing in the cases cited by the appellants which would mandate a reversal of the compensation judge’s determination in the present case.  The compensation judge’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and we affirm his decision and award.