- 23 -
reminded that petitioner's position as a project engineer
required that he be substantially mobile and physically fit in
order to perform his duties. Further, the record clearly
demonstrates that as of October 1989, petitioner was unable to
climb ladders or otherwise, lift heavy objects, or "walk beams".
In short, based on the particular facts and circumstances of this
case, we find the content of the job evaluation report for 1990
to be contrary to the weight of the evidence. Moreover, the
record demonstrates that when petitioner's disability became such
that petitioner could no longer perform his job but he was
mentally not ready to give up, his subordinates and superiors
accommodated him however they could.
As reflected in our findings of fact, petitioner's physical
condition at the time of trial was essentially the same as it was
immediately before receiving the Transfer Refund in October 1989.
In our judgment, and based on our observations over the course of
an afternoon, petitioner was disabled at the time of trial.
Thus, suffice it to say that petitioner was neither mobile nor
fit immediately before receiving the Transfer Refund in October
1989. His physical impairment, which was of a long-continued and
indefinite duration, precluded him from engaging in his customary
or any comparable substantial gainful activity.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011