FISCHEL, J.
The self-insurer appeals from the decision of the administrative judge on the sole ground that the judge's findings regarding vocational rehabilitation were beyond his authority and contrary to the law set out in § 30H.
After the employee, a registered nurse, injured her neck in October 1989, forcing her to leave work on March 1, 1990 because of pain, the self-insurer commenced payment of § 34 benefits. After denial of the self-insurer's request for discontinuance or modification at conference, the self-insurer timely appealed and a hearing was held. The judge found the employee's neck injury causally related to the October 1989 incident which aggravated an October 1988 neck injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident. (Dec. 6.) The judge further found the employee partially incapacitated as of December 4, 1991, the date on which Dr. Coleman, whom the judge adopted, opined she was capable of light duty, and continuing. The judge therefore assigned the employee an earning capacity of $250.00 per week. (Dec. 6.)
On the issue of vocational rehabilitation, the judge made the following subsidiary findings:
At the Conference on July 11, 1991, the Employee was referred to the Office of Education and Vocational Rehabilitation for evaluation and was subsequently found to be eligible for such services. As the Self-Insurer declined to provide such services, the Department of Industrial Accidents will bill the Self-Insurer a minimum of twice the program costs upon successful completion of a rehabilitation program. (Dec. 5-6.)
The self-insurer argues that these findings should be stricken from the decision as beyond the authority of the judge to make.
Section 30H provides in pertinent part:
Applications for vocational rehabilitation services.
If the insurer and employee [
sic] fail to agree to a vocational rehabilitation program, the employee may apply to the office of education and vocational rehabilitation for vocational rehabilitation services.
The office shall
determine if vocational rehabilitation is necessary and
feasible to return the employee to suitable employment.
Such determination by the office shall be final and not
subject to review by the board or reviewing board, but may be appealed to the commissioner. . . . If, upon the completion of the program, the office determines that the program was successful and returned the employee to suitable employment, it shall assess the insurer no less than twice the cost incurred by the office and such assessment shall be paid into [the] trust fund. The insurer may contest any aspect of the assessment by filing a complaint with the division of dispute resolution. The injured employee shall not be a party to such proceedings. (Emphasis added.)
As the self-insurer argues, § 30H provides that OEVR, not an administrative judge or the reviewing board, makes the determination whether vocational rehabilitation is necessary and feasible. However, we do not find the administrative judge's reiteration of the procedure set out in § 30H as error in itself. The judge was not ordering vocational rehabilitation. If he had done so, he would have been acting beyond the scope of his authority. It is apparent that the judge understood the parameters of his authority by the following exchange that took place during the hearing:
EMPLOYEE COUNSEL: What I was not clear on was whether or not rehab was ordered by the Court or not at the last conference.
JUDGE: No. I cannot order rehabilitation. What I did was to refer her to rehabilitation.
(October 7, 1991 Hearing Transcript 46-47.) However, the only evidence that the self-insurer refused to pay for rehabilitation services was the statement of employee's counsel at hearing, albeit unrebutted by the self-insurer. See October 7, 1991 Hearing Transcript 45-46. Therefore, while we find no error in the administrative judge's reference to vocational rehabilitation, we find no evidence in the record to support the finding that the self-insurer declined to provide services, and so strike it.
The decision of the administrative judge is affirmed in all other respects.
Judges McCarthy and Wilson concur.