Cited by

Comm’n, (noting that in determining suitability it must be shown with specificity that the physical requirements of the employment and that “abstractions are not sufficient”) (quotation and citation omitted).

The employee has the initial burden of proving LEC, and may satisfy it by presenting expert testimony to “establish[] evidence of job opportunities” that the employee could perform post-injury

Comm’n, -84 , -28 (1983).

The burden of proving a loss of earning capacity is on the claimant and may be met *78 by evidence that the claimant is unable “to perform the job at which he was injured and to get other work which he can perform in light of his physical impairments.” See, e.g., Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n

Thus, while the task in these cases is usually “to determine as near as possible whether in a competitive labor market the subject in his injured condition can probably sell his services and for how much,” Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n, -84 , -28 (1983) (citation omitted), the parties here have stipulated that in the competitive market, claimant could only have sold her services at a reduced wage rate.