With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, the record contains almost no evidence about Employee’s work history and none about his vocational skills. Employee did testify that, before working for Employer, he worked at Pilgrim’s Pride of North Wilkesboro, but there are no details about what type of work he performed there. Beyond testimony from Employer’s loss prevention and safety manager that Employee performed filing and paperwork duties after his December 2006 injury (suggesting he may have some basic clerical skills), our review reveals no evidence about Employee’s education, experience, training, or vocational skills. Accordingly, the above-quoted portion of finding of fact 33 is not supported by competent evidence. Compare, e.g., Bridges v. Linn-Corriher Corp., 90 N.C. App. 397, 400-01, 368 S.E.2d 388, 390-91 (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 171, 373 S.E.2d

A: holding evidence that the employee was sixtyone years old with a fifthgrade education skilled only in work he was physically unable to perform afflicted with an easily aggravated breathing condition and had attempted but was unable to obtain employment sufficient to show the employees impaired earning capacity
B: holding that where evidence was sufficient for attempted murder it was necessarily sufficient for aggravated assault which is a lesser included offense
C: holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel
D: holding that an employer need not accommodate with indefinite leave an employee who is unable to return to work in any role
A.