argued that this principle should apply to a non-working Claimant. I posited that the Claimant, who has an impairment which limits her to light or sedentary work, should be found to have a 0% loss of wage earning capacity. A vocational rehabilitation expert opined that the claimant was capable of returning to work earning in excess of her former average weekly wage despite her impairment because of her vocational history and educational achievements.