Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
The Rehabilitation Professional
Shahnasarian, M., & Wilber, T. (2026). A Proposed Model for Analyzing and Presenting Opinions in Assessment of Loss of Earning Capacity Claims Involving Injury Cases. The Rehabilitation Professional, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.70385/001c.169330

View more stats

Abstract

Although several peer-reviewed, generally accepted methodologies for conducting analyses of loss of earning capacity claims have evolved, the vocational rehabilitation profession has lacked specifications for summarizing and presenting opinions on vocational damages in injury cases. When a vocational rehabilitation expert applies a sound method to arrive at valid opinions, the manner in which those opinions are summarized and presented can significantly foster understanding among the many stakeholders involved in assessing a claim’s value. Additional benefits include enhanced inter-evaluator reliability and greater standardization within the profession. This article proposes an integrated, systematic, five-part framework for vocational rehabilitation experts’ discernment and presentation of their assessments and opinions on loss of earning capacity claims in injury cases—regardless of the methodology employed to arrive at opinions. The framework encompasses the following categories:

  1. Analysis of Vocational Background
  2. Analysis of Pre-accident/Pre-incident Disabling Conditions Affecting Vocational Functioning
  3. Assessment of Post-accident/Post-incident Disabling Conditions Affecting Vocational Functioning
  4. Assets to Pursue Vocational Rehabilitation
  5. Assessment of Loss of Earning Capacity Claim
    A case study illustrates the proposed model’s application.

Vocational expert witnesses providing analyses and assessments in loss of earning capacity claims—whether retained by defense or plaintiff counsel—share a superordinate aim: to provide opinions capable of withstanding potential Daubert challenges, grounded in case-specific facts and the applied science of vocational rehabilitation. Opinions lacking these criteria offer no value within the litigation context.

Attorneys, judges, tortfeasors, triers of fact, opposing experts, insurance adjusters, plaintiffs, defendants, and all other stakeholders evaluating injured persons’ loss of earning capacity claims have varying frames of reference. Some possess more refined perspectives than others; some harbor greater biases; and some demonstrate less intent on discovering underlying truths. Such is the imperfect realm in which vocational rehabilitation experts and others craft their analyses and opinions.

Frameworks for discerning disabling conditions and proposing treatment interventions offer several advantages to those evaluating damages claims, including facilitating integration and analysis of case-specific data within a practitioner’s professional science and imposing a measure of standardization in how practitioners assess relevant criteria. Examples of structures commonly applied by medically focused healthcare providers include the S-O-A-P system (Status, Objective, Assessment, Plan) that Lawrence Weed introduced in 1968 to analyze presenting problems and propose treatment plans, and mental health professionals’ use of the DSM-5-TR to diagnose mental health conditions using evidence-based criteria integrated into a single coordinated diagnostic list.

The methods vocational rehabilitation experts employ to derive opinions are subject to discovery and scrutiny throughout the litigation process via expert interrogatories and disclosures, reports, deposition testimony, trial testimony, and hearings including motions in limine and Daubert hearings. Several peer-reviewed, generally accepted methodologies for conducting vocational rehabilitation assessments addressing loss of earning capacity claims have evolved. Van de Bittner et al. (2012) presented a consensus methodology for evaluating peer-reviewed approaches, while Field (2012), Robinson (2014), and Shahnasarian (2015, 2022) have provided reviews of mainstream methodologies. A comprehensive analysis of these methodologies exceeds this article’s scope, which focuses on synthesizing available evidence and applying vocational rehabilitation science to arrive at and present expert opinions within a reasonable degree of probability.

The Discernment of Vocationally Relevant Evidence

Generally, stakeholders interested in evaluating a loss of earning capacity claim’s merits should consider several sequential, hierarchically structured questions (Robinson, 2014; Shahnasarian, 2015, 2022). From a vocational expert’s perspective, these questions typically include five core categories: vocational background, preexisting conditions, alleged newly acquired disabling conditions, assets to mitigate claimed damages, and the ultimate objective—opinion on loss of earning capacity claim and, when relevant, the degree of diminution.

Typical questions within these categories follow:

  • Vocational Background: What is the claimant’s educational background and work history? Where was the claimant in their work life chronology at the time of injury? What post-injury vocational rehabilitation efforts have been initiated, and what have been the results? These questions establish a baseline and develop a historical record as a partial basis for projecting a future vocational and earnings trajectory absent the disputed issue and alleged damages.

  • Preexisting Conditions: Does the claimant have preexisting conditions material to the damages claim? Has the subject event exacerbated these conditions? If affirmative, what import do these conditions have for the pending vocational analysis? Many preexisting conditions progress and worsen regardless of additional trauma, which is important to consider when evaluating a loss of earning capacity claim.

  • Alleged Newly Acquired Disabling Conditions: Did the alleged trauma cause the claimant to acquire new, vocationally relevant disabling conditions? If so, what implications do these problems have for the claimant’s ability to work and earn wages?

  • Assets to Mitigate Claimed Damages: Does the claimant possess assets, such as residual functional capacities or transferable skills, that could advance career development? Could these assets help mitigate anticipated employment difficulties and potential loss of earning capacity?

  • Opinion on Loss of Earning Capacity Claim: Does case-specific evidence and vocational rehabilitation science support a claim of loss of earning capacity within a reasonable degree of probability? If so, can claimed damages be mitigated? When relevant, can diminished earning capacity be quantified or monetized?

The above questions, investigated through a generally accepted vocational rehabilitation evaluation methodology, lend themselves to a sequential presentation format that ultimately addresses the overarching question: Within a reasonable degree of vocational rehabilitation probability, has the claimant’s alleged injuries caused a loss of earning capacity?

The author proposes the following summary and impressions presentation format:

  1. Analysis of Vocational Background

  2. Analysis of Pre-accident/Pre-incident Disabling Conditions Affecting Vocational Functioning

  3. Assessment of Post-accident/Post-incident Disabling Conditions Affecting Vocational Functioning

  4. Assets to Pursue Vocational Rehabilitation

  5. Assessment of Loss of Earning Capacity Claim

Conveniently, each of the five analytical domains begins with the letter “A,” facilitating recall and application. The components of each domain are further discussed below, followed by a case study (Appendix) illustrating the format’s application. Additional information on the model’s features appears in Shahnasarian (2022).

Proposed Five-Step Analytical and Presentation Model

1. Analysis of Vocational Background

This introductory section provides important contextual information on a claim regarding variables including the claimant’s education and work history, analysis of exertional and nonexertional work performed at and before the time of injury, stability of work history and work propensity, and overachievement/underachievement patterns. Evaluators comment on any vocational irregularities detected, such as those related to work participation and historical earnings patterns. They note the claimant’s career development phase and, depending on available evidence, opine on post-injury vocational rehabilitation efforts and rehabilitation motivation.

2. Analysis of Pre-accident/Pre-incident Disabling Conditions Affecting Vocational Functioning

An evaluee’s pre-accident medical history can be significant from a vocational rehabilitation perspective. The degenerative course and progression of some preexisting conditions—including musculoskeletal, neurological, and psychological conditions—sometimes reduce vocational capacities and would have implications for vocational functioning absent any additional trauma. Information about preexisting conditions, their progression, and vocationally relevant manifestations can be obtained through records, clinical interviews, and consultations with qualified healthcare practitioners. This insight facilitates assessment of how preexisting condition evolution might have affected work capacities regardless of alleged new injuries, which is critical when evaluating a loss of earning capacity claim.

Five outcomes from a traumatic event are possible:

  1. No additional injury of any sort occurred

  2. Preexisting injuries were acutely exacerbated and subsequently resolved, causing no new permanent injury

  3. Preexisting injuries were exacerbated, causing new permanent impairment of preexisting conditions

  4. Preexisting injuries were not exacerbated, but new permanent injury occurred

  5. Both preexisting conditions were exacerbated and new injury and impairment occurred

Of course, unless qualified to render opinions on medical and psychological causation, vocational experts should refrain from doing so.

As an example, consider a 35-year-old with a history of preexisting neck and back problems who performed physically demanding skilled trades work before presenting a claim for injury damages allegedly acquired from a slip-and-fall incident. Regardless of any new injury sustained, the physical demands of the claimant’s historical work might have made attaining a full work life in the pre-incident occupation improbable regardless of new injury, due to progression of preexisting pathologies and increasing incompatibility between job requirements and functional limitations.

Through available means, vocational experts should factor into their analyses whether an evaluee experienced any presenting problems before the claimed subject injury and, when relevant, the implications of prior impairment—both exertional and nonexertional—on vocational functioning. Analyses should also determine whether an evaluee had impairment or restrictions before the contended trauma and consider how those preexisting conditions might have affected vocational functioning over their work life despite any new injury.

3. Assessment of Post-accident/Post-incident Disabling Conditions Affecting Vocational Functioning

Summarizing and evaluating an evaluee’s complaints, treatment, diagnoses, prognoses, and restrictions from the alleged injury’s onset provides a foundational basis for evaluating how alleged injuries and functional capacities/limitations affect career development and vocational rehabilitation prospects. Evaluators clinically correlate and synthesize information gathered throughout the assessment process to address questions including whether an evaluee can return to prior employment or pursue alternate employment, and determining options based on post-injury residual capacities and limitations. These could include applying transferable skills to alternate occupations, retraining, or modified employment such as part-time or remote work.

Evaluators should also consider any unrelated post-accident medical problems an evaluee experienced after the subject injury occurred. Disabling conditions acquired from unrelated mechanisms—such as motor vehicle accidents, illness or disease, and other trauma—could have implications for the damages claim.

Ideally, when evaluators provide final assessments of vocational damages, evaluees will have reached maximum medical improvement—the point during post-injury recovery when healthcare professionals determine that substantial functional gains or improvement are unlikely. If an evaluee has not reached this state, the evaluator should consider noting that the assessment remains in a formative state, with final opinions deferred until or near maximum medical improvement.

4. Assets to Pursue Vocational Rehabilitation

Taking stock of factors facilitating vocational rehabilitation is particularly important in cases where an evaluator concludes that an evaluee’s injuries prohibit continuing along former career trajectory lines, impair work performance, derail viable pre-injury career plans, or otherwise forecast adverse implications for work participation and career advancement. Generally, evaluators assess the following factors facilitating vocational rehabilitation prospects: cognitive capacities, preserved and impaired physical capacities, personal qualities, education and training, work-related credentials, work experience, transferable skills, and retraining potential. In some cases, assets could include second language skills, strong aptitudes demonstrated on standardized testing, and supportive employers.

An assessment of an evaluee’s rehabilitation assets enables evaluators to define residual capacities that may be leveraged into vocational activity, establishing a foundation to determine how residual and latent capacities translate to work capacity and, by extension, wage-earning capacity. This progression along the analytical framework presented herein leads to ultimately addressing the overarching referral question: Within a reasonable degree of vocational rehabilitation probability, has the evaluee’s alleged injuries caused a loss of earning capacity?

5. Assessment of Loss of Earning Capacity Claim

Having established a proper foundation through the analytical processes described in Steps 1 through 5, examiners often address the following questions in determining a claim’s value:

  • Can the evaluee resume prior work with or without accommodations?

  • If not, is the evaluee capable of applying transferable skills to a job with requirements compatible with residual capacities and offering comparable compensation?

  • Is the evaluee a candidate for retraining? Presuming successful retraining, will the evaluee eventually generate earnings commensurate with historical levels?

  • Will injuries impair career development progress and suppress future earnings?

  • Did the evaluee have an opportunity to realize career development potential before becoming injured?

  • Presuming an evaluee sustained a loss of earning capacity, what opportunities exist to mitigate the loss?

If an evaluator determines an evaluee sustained a loss of earning capacity, the final task is to quantify the loss. This involves providing opinions on differentials between pre-injury and post-injury earning capacity, derived from case-specific evidence and analyses. Labor market research sometimes provides supplemental information to help determine and monetize earning capacity loss values.

In some cases, an evaluator might provide an interim opinion and recommend an update evaluation—particularly when an individual has not reached maximum medical improvement— allowing final opinions on review of additional or updated evidence deemed necessary to complete the analysis. Evaluators also sometimes identify additional documentary evidence necessary to reach final opinions, such as employment/earnings records or updated medical records, and note when extant evidence is insufficient to determine loss of earning capacity.

The Earning Capacity Assessment Form-2 (Shahnasarian, 2010) is a resource to identify evaluee-specific factors potentially facilitating or inhibiting vocational rehabilitation. It incorporates nine inhibiting factors and five facilitative factors to aid determination of an evaluee’s injury-related degree of earning capacity impairment—none, mild, moderate, severe, extremely severe, or catastrophic—and can help quantify earning capacity losses.

Summary

An analytical framework grounded in vocational rehabilitation science offers a disciplined and comprehensive structure to evaluate loss of earning capacity claims. Applying a methodology that systematically summarizes and presents opinions can be particularly valuable in a forensic forum to promote understanding among diverse stakeholders regarding the decision-making process and ultimate opinions generated.

Vocational evaluators’ documentation of opinions largely affects how they will be accepted or rejected. Drawing from tenets of vocational rehabilitation practice, this article proposes an integrated, systematic, framework for synthesizing and analyzing evidence necessary to arrive at and present documentary opinions on loss of earning capacity in injury cases. The case study (Appendix) illustrates how vocational evaluators can apply the five-part framework in a case at hand.

Submitted: June 01, 2026 CDT

Revised: September 02, 2026 CDT

Accepted: September 05, 2026 CDT

References

Field, T. F. (2012). Estimating earning capacity: A historical review. Rehabilitation Professional, 20, 51–62. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.70385/​001c.146884
Google Scholar
Robinson, R. H. (2014). Forensic rehabilitation and vocational earning capacity models. In R. H. Robinson (Ed.), Foundations of Forensic Vocational Rehabilitation (pp. 33–61). Springer Publishing Company.
Google Scholar
Shahnasarian, M. (2010). The Earning Capacity Assessment Form-2. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Google Scholar
Shahnasarian, M. (2015). Assessment of earning capacity (4th ed.). Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc.
Google Scholar
Shahnasarian, M. (2022). The valuation of monetary damages in injury cases: A damages expert’s perspective. American Bar Association.
Google Scholar
Van de Bittner, E. E., Wallace, A., Cottle, R. B., & Simon, S. (2012). Comparison of a consensus methodology for evaluating employability and earning capacity by the CA-IARP DFEC work group with published, peer-reviewed methodologies. Rehabilitation Professional, 20, 75–86. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.70385/​001c.146886
Google Scholar

Appendix

Case Study

The case study below demonstrates how an examiner analyzed and synthesized factual evidence with evidence gathered during a vocational rehabilitation evaluation and applied the reporting framework delineated above to present vocationally relevant opinions. In this case, the evaluee had not yet reached maximum medical improvement and relevant discovery evidence was continuing to be gathered. Accordingly, the examiner presents supportable opinions based on extant evidence and notes the analysis remains in a formative state.

Examiner’s Overview

John Alan Mope was referred for a vocational rehabilitation evaluation. A complaint documents allegations of injuries he sustained from a pedestrian versus motor vehicle accident on February 14, 2026. Big Office Supply employed Mr. Mope as a customer sales specialist at the time of his accident.

I examined Mr. Mope on July 15, 2026. The exam included a clinical interview requiring 4 hours and 30 minutes and administration of a battery of tests requiring an additional 2 hours and 10 minutes.

Currently, Mr. Mope reports experiencing the following problems he relates to his February 2026 accident:

  • Severe, chronic migraines

  • Exacerbation of pre-accident bilateral tinnitus

  • Ongoing bilateral jaw pain with crepitation, exacerbated by use

  • Ongoing neck pain radiating bilaterally into shoulders

  • Ongoing lower back pain radiating bilaterally into lower extremities, prominent on left side

  • Onset of right foot pain secondary to bearing weight

  • Impaired balance

  • Cognitive dysfunction including “brain fog,” difficulty maintaining focus, and memory problems

  • Anxiety

Regarding pre-accident health, Mr. Mope reported experiencing moderate tinnitus from an ear infection 1 month before his February 2026 accident. He denied experiencing any of the aforementioned problems pre-accident. When asked about pre-accident migraines, he responded negatively. He also denied having pre-accident injuries to his neck, lower back, or right foot, and he reported no cognitive difficulties before his 2026 accident.

As for the accident itself, Mr. Mope confirmed that he struck his head and lost consciousness. He recalled, “When I came to, there were multiple people over me.”

Concerning post-accident mental functioning, Mr. Mope cited problems with speech production, specifically word retrieval, along with short-term memory and attention span difficulties. He referenced trouble with maintaining focus, distractibility, and multitasking at work.

“I’ve had to start writing down lists occasionally, so I don’t forget something,” he explained.

Summary and Impressions

1. Analysis of Vocational Background

Twenty-three-year-old John Alan Mope is pursuing damages for injuries associated with a February 14, 2026, pedestrian versus motor vehicle accident. A 2020 high school graduate, Mr. Mope pursued college studies but has not yet earned a degree. His high school transcript documents strong scholastic performance.

Regarding work history, Mr. Mope has held positions as a retail customer service associate, part-time security guard, and customer sales specialist/remote salesperson/sales associate with Big Office Supply. He began service with Big Office in January 2022 and continued through his accident in February 2026 and to date. He was promoted to his current customer sales specialist position in summer 2025.

Based on understanding of his customer sales specialist responsibilities, he performed semiskilled, medium-exertion tasks. His job required handling objects weighing up to 50 pounds, performing the full range of body movements, standing and walking his entire shift, and climbing ladders.

Mr. Mope’s diagnoses at Great Region Hospital on the accident day included subdural hematoma, closed head injury, and closed fracture of the left occipital condyle. Subsequent imaging revealed bulging and herniated discs in his cervical and lumbar spine. He has undergone extensive treatment for his musculoskeletal injuries and ongoing neurological and cognitive dysfunction problems.

After a 2-week work absence post-accident, Mr. Mope returned to work with occasional absences for medical treatment. He reported that his employer has been supportive and continues to extend accommodations. His modified job responsibilities have remained within his capacity; however, he experiences ongoing difficulties maintaining focus throughout workdays, managing multiple customers, and engaging in multitasking or problem-solving requiring rapid mental shifting. “I get very tired and I don’t want to be around people,” he stated, describing effects of his cognitive difficulties.

Mr. Mope expressed concerns that his accident injuries will adversely affect his career development, and he disclosed that his injuries have already dissuaded him from applying for a promotion opportunity. His concerns include diminished capacity for cognitively complex work. He also believes his cognitive difficulties could interfere with completing his education, suppress scholastic performance, and hinder career advancement.

From a vocational rehabilitation perspective, my analysis leads me to conclude that Mr. Mope’s concerns are valid. His pre-accident career plans included advancing his career with Big Office and pursuing U.S. Air Force Reserve service with the National Guard. “I also thought about going back to school full time for space physics or astrophysics, doing space research,” he added. I am unaware of any reason he would not have been able to pursue his stated pre-accident career objectives absent the injuries and associated disabling problems he acquired from his February 2026 accident.

Mr. Mope plans to relocate in early 2027 to the South Bend, Indiana, area, where he has family members, and pursue employment opportunities there. He expressed high job satisfaction with Big Office and assessed that he has been meeting his employer’s performance expectations. He has not sought alternate employment since his 2026 accident. He earned $52,968 during 2025.

Mr. Mope is in the exploration/establishment phase of his career development. He demonstrated strong motivation to pursue vocational rehabilitation.

2. Assessment of Pre-accident Disabling Conditions Affecting Vocational Functioning

Mr. Mope denied experiencing his current accident-related problems before February 14, 2026, except for moderate tinnitus. He indicated he had no medical problems or restrictions near the time before his accident. I am unaware of evidence refuting Mr. Mope’s representations.

3. Assessment of Post-accident Disabling Conditions Affecting Vocational Functioning

As noted above, Mr. Mope’s diagnoses include musculoskeletal injuries along with neurological and cognitive dysfunction. His post-accident treatment has included multimodal interventions, and his medical records clinically correlate with his subjective symptom presentation.

The most recent medical records I reviewed included notes from Dr. Melba Louis, a neurologist, and Dr. Frank Pierce, an orthopedic spine surgeon. Dr. Louis authored an office note on March 19, 2026, diagnosing multicompartmental brain injury, including subdural hematoma, and recommended follow-up with a musculoskeletal specialist for Mr. Mope’s spinal and orthopedic injuries, along with ongoing vestibular therapy and cognitive rehabilitation. In his November 24, 2025, report, Dr. Pierce recommended an L4-5 laminectomy and discectomy for Mr. Mope, along with cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and an SI joint injection.

Mr. Mope’s primary problem during my clinical interview related to cognitive dysfunction from traumatic brain injury. His head and lower back are his most symptomatic body parts. Additionally, he complained of exacerbated tinnitus, bilateral jaw pain with crepitation, ongoing neck pain with radiculopathy, onset of right foot pain secondary to bearing weight, impaired balance, anxiety, and related sequelae.

Regarding functional capacities, Mr. Mope stated, “Anything under 30 pounds I can lift, but it becomes difficult. If it’s over 50 pounds, it hurts.” His range of motion turning his head left or right has diminished, and he described tension when extending his neck. Additionally, his arm strength has diminished, and he presented problems with his right foot and gait.

Alternating between sitting and standing exacerbates his back symptoms. He indicated that bending, squatting, kneeling, and climbing stairs have become problematic. He also described limitations with walking and standing. Other significant problems related to fatigue and occasional anxiety while driving. His injuries have caused sleeping difficulties.

I observed minor word retrieval difficulties. Mr. Mope projected a flat/depressed affect, and depression indicators were evident in his test results. Again, his subjective complaints are consistent with his diagnostic testing results and assessments his healthcare providers have rendered.

Based on information reviewed to date, I recommend restricting Mr. Mope’s work activities to sedentary/light exertion tasks. Available evidence indicates it is unlikely that he will be capable of resuming the full scope of his pre-accident customer sales specialist responsibilities without accommodations. His accident injuries have already adversely affected his career development. Further, he had not had an opportunity to optimize his career development before becoming injured, and his accident-related injuries threaten to suppress his pre-accident career and earnings potential.

4. Assets to Pursue Vocational Rehabilitation

Along with his work motivation and support extended by his employer and coworkers, Mr. Mope possesses several assets facilitating vocational rehabilitation. He is a younger individual who demonstrated superior intellect (Full Scale IQ = 122) on testing. Mr. Mope scored in the superior range on measures of general fund of information. Additionally, he demonstrated strengths in the following areas: comprehension, mental organization and planning, and ability to quickly learn, retain, and apply new information.

Mr. Mope stated he does not have significant problems with walking or standing for short durations. Depending on the seating surface, he estimated he can sit for up to 60 minutes before exceeding his tolerance. Personally, I found him pleasant and likable. He possesses education, work experience, and transferable skills as previously delineated.

5. Assessment of Loss of Earning Capacity Claim

The fact that Mr. Mope has returned to work, resumed his pre-accident customer sales specialist position albeit with accommodations, and is earning wages commensurate with pre-accident levels should not obscure a claim of loss of earning capacity. At a minimum, his accident injuries have delayed his career progress. Those assessing Mr. Mope’s loss of earning capacity claim should recognize that he had not had an opportunity to realize his full career and earnings potential before becoming injured in February 2026.

Mr. Mope is a young man who demonstrated impressive scholastic performance, achieved job promotions, and aspired to attainable, ambitious career objectives. Pursuing military service through the National Guard is contraindicated from a vocational rehabilitation perspective. Mr. Mope’s loss-of-earning-capacity damages could be quite significant if he cannot ameliorate his cognitive difficulties and advance his education and career development as he had planned.

I recommend an update vocational rehabilitation evaluation of Mr. Mope at or near the time he reaches maximum medical improvement. As indicated above, he is a candidate for surgical intervention and ongoing treatment for his neurological and cognitive impairments. My assessment of Mr. Mope’s loss of earning capacity claim remains in a formative state.