Courts need more than numbers; they need to understand how those numbers were reached. RAPEL offers a courtroom-friendly roadmap. Use the questions below to evaluate any vocational opinion that references the RAPEL model—without prying into proprietary methods.
Start with the “R”: Rehabilitation Plan
Goal: Establish realistic steps that enable work.
Ask:
- What accommodations, therapies, or re-training are assumed?
- Over what timeframe, and how do these steps affect work readiness?
“A” for Access: Which Jobs Are Realistic?
Goal: Identify job families that fit the person’s skills and limits.
Ask:
- Which job groups are plausible and why?
- How were required credentials, physical demands, and schedule needs considered?
“P” for Placeability: Likelihood of Getting Hired
Goal: Move from “can do” to “can get.”
Ask:
- What market indicators support the placement likelihood (e.g., hiring trends, role prerequisites)?
- Are there barriers—gaps in recent experience, transportation, licensing—that meaningfully change the outlook?
“E” for Earnings Capacity: Reasonable Income Range
Goal: Provide a bracketed, supportable range.
Ask:
- What time horizon is used (near-term vs. stabilized earnings)?
- Are part-time or transitional roles included, and how do they affect the range?
- Consideration can be given to pre-injury and post-injury timelines
“L” for Labor Force Participation: Consistency Over Time
Goal: Reflect realistic work patterns.
Ask:
- Is full-time sustained employment reasonable, or is a modified schedule more likely?
- What factors could shift participation up or down over time?
Red Flags That Can Undermine Credibility
- Single point predictions without ranges or sensitivity to assumptions
- Overlooking functional limits documented in medical records
- Ignoring credential or licensing requirements in targeted roles
- Generic job lists that don’t reflect the person’s actual skills or geography
How RAPEL Supports Clear Testimony
- Organized answers: Each RAPEL domain maps to a common line of courtroom questioning.
- Traceable assumptions: Judges and juries can see what changed the conclusion—and by how much.
- Neutral presentation: RAPEL structures the explanation; it doesn’t advocate.
Where RAPEL Fits with Other Evidence
A RAPEL-referenced opinion often sits alongside medical findings, labor market information, and economic projections. The value is in how well the narrative links those sources to a realistic work and earnings picture.
RAPEL doesn’t reveal a firm’s proprietary process; it communicates the logic of an opinion in plain terms.
With the right questions, you can assess whether an earning-capacity opinion is grounded, neutral, and useful to the court.
For foundational overviews, see Vocational Evaluations Explained and What Attorneys Should Know About Vocational Forensic Evaluations. To consult with an expert, please contact us.
