Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30031

In R e: I n t h e M att er of P A R K E R D R ILL IN G O F F S H O R E U S AL L C , as O w n er an d O perator of

P arker R i g 14-J, P rayi n g f or E xon erat i on F rom an d/ or Li m i t at i o n o f

Li ab i l i t y f

o rt he i nc i den t of Se pt e m be r1 1, 2 00 3, a tChande l e ur A r ea B l oc k 27

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - PARK ER D RI LLI N G O FFS H OR E U SA LL C T h i rd P art y P l ai n t i f

f - A pp el l an t
- C ross - A pp el l ee v. LON N I E CO RTN EY CAM PBELL C l a i m a n t - A p p ell ee -C ross -A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana
B ef ore B A R K S D A L E , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * C la im a n tL o n n ie C o r t n e y C a m p b e ll( “ C a m p b e ll ” ) w o r k e d a s a h a m m e r ’s hel peron t he appel l ant ParkerD r i l l i ng ( “ Parker ” ) ’ s r i g o n Sept em ber11, 2003. O n t hat dat e, he w as t r anspo r t ed t o t he r i g and t ol d t o t ake a nap and w ai tt o b e United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30031

2 c al l e d t o w o r k. Cam pb e l lr e t i r e d t o a n e i ghtm an s l e e pe ro n t he he l i po r ta nd
w en tt o bed arou n d n oon . A taroun d 3: 00 t o 3: 30 p
. m . , du e t o P arker’ s i m proper m a i nt enance , one of t he r i g’ s l egs c ol l apse d c ausi ng t he r i g t o s uddenl y l i st. C am pb el lfel lout of t h e t op bu n k a n d lan ded on top of an ot h er em pl oyee. Cam pb e l l ’ s he ad a nd u ppe rb o dyhi tt he f l o o ra nd h i s l o w e rb o dyfe l li nt o t he s i de
o f t he b o t t o m b unk. Cam pb e l l i ni t i al l y t ho ugh tt hatt he s l e e pe rha d fal l e n o f f t he ri g e n ti rely. H e im m ed i a tel y g ot u p f rom the f

l oo r an d w e n t t o th e lock er to
r e tr ie v e p ic tu r e s o f h is w ife a n d ch ild r e n . C a m p b e ll te s tifie d th a t h e to o k h is
w al l e ta nd p uti ti n hi s und e r w e arf o ri de nt i f

i c at i o n pu r po s e s . H e t he n pu to n a l i fe j a c ke t a nd a t t e m p t e d t o e x i t t he r i g . U p o n e x i t i ng t he s l e e p e r , he s aw n o th in gb u t s m o k e . C la d o n ly in h is u n d e r w e a r , C a m p b e ll b e g a n ru n n in gu n til he f ound st ai r s; he hel ped o t herw or ker s al ong t he w ay. C am pbel lt es t i f i ed t hat h e h a d b e lie v e d th a t h e w o u ld lo s e h is life a t t h a t t im e . H e fe a r e d th a t t h e rig
w o ul d g o c o m pl e t e l y o ve r , b e c aus e he o bs e r ve d pa r t o f t he r i g’ s de c k was a l r e ad y i n t h e w ateran d tha t the cran e app eared cl ose t o fal l i n g i n t o t h e w ater
. C am pb el lfi n al l y reached t h e w ateran d sw am aw ay; he w as abl e t o sw i m t o a r e s c u e b o a t a n d w a s p u lle d to s a fe ty
. O n Sep t em ber 17, 200 3, P arker f i l ed an adm i ral t y sui tf or exon e ra ti on a n d /o rlim ita tio n o f lia b ility fo rth e in c id e n t a s a u th o r iz e d u n d e r4 6 U .S .C . § 3 0 5 0 1 , e ts e q. C a m p b e ll file d a s u it a g a in s t P a r k e r , cla im in gd a m a g e s to h is
n eck, l ow er back, w ri stas w el las si g n ifi can tpost
- t rau m ati c s t ress di sorder ( “ PTSD ” )

. P ar ke rs t i pul at e d t o l i ab i l i t y. The t r i alc o ur ta w ar de d Cam pb e l lt he fo llo w in g : 1. P ast ph ysi calpain an d su f feri n g for c ervi calan d carpa lt u n n el i nj uri es - $300, 000. 00; 2. P ast m en t alpain an d su f feri n g f or post t rau m ati c s t ress di sorder

- $150, 000. 00; 3. Pastphysi c alpai n and suf fer i ng f or l um bar i nj uri es - $100, 000. 00N o. 08- 30031

3 Pre- j udgm enti nt er es ton said su m s shal lac c r ue att he r at e o f 6% per an n u m , si m pl e i n t erest , f rom date of

l oss. 4. Pr e s e n t a n d f

u t u r e p h y s i c a l p a i n a n d s u f fe r i n g f o r c e r v i c a la nd c ar palt unn eli nj uri es - $100, 000. 00; 5
. P r e s e n t a n d fu tu r e m e n ta l p a in a n d s u ffe r in g fo rp o s t t r a u m a tic st r es s di so r der- $50, 000. 00; 6
. P re se n t a n d fu tu re p a in a n d su ffer in gfor lu m b a r inju rie s - $100, 000. 00; 7. Fut ur e l o s tw ag e s - $ 84 , 00 0. 00 ; a nd 8. Fu t ure m edi c alt r eat m ent- $68, 066. 00 I nt er es ton pr es ent and f ut ure dam ages as s etf or t h above s hal lbe c al c ul at ed pur suantt o 2 8 U
. S. C
. §1 961. P a r k e rtim e ly a p p e a le d th e ju d g m e n t. C a m p b e ll cr o s s -a p p e a ls
. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW

“Adi st ri ctcourt ’ s dam ages aw ard i s a f i n di n g o f fact , w h i ch thi s c ou rt
rev i ew s f

or ex cess i ve n ess u sing the cl ea r erro r stan d a rd
. ” L ebron v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 279 F
. 3d 321 , 325 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)

. O n app ealf rom a j u dg m en taf

t er a b e n c h t r i a l , we r e v i e w f i n d i n g s o f

fa c tf o rc l e a re r r o ra n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de
novo . Hou st on Explor ati on C o. v. Hall i bu rt on E n ergy Servs. , I n c. , 359 F. 3d 777, 77 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4)

. “ W e revi e w t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ' s a w ar d o f pr ej udg m e nt i n teres t for a n a b u se o f d i scre ti on . ” Int ’lTu rbi n e Servs. , I nc . v . VA SP B r az i l i an A ir lin e s , 2 7 8 F .3 d 4 9 4 , 4 9 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A N A L Y S IS A . P a rk er’ s C o n ten ti o n s I. T h e M a x im u m R e c o v e r y R u le D o e s N o t A p p ly P ar kerc ont ends t hat t he t ot alaw ar d of $200, 000 f

orPT SD m ustbe
r e mi t t e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f t h e ma x i mu m r e c o v e r y r u l e . P u t t i n ga s i d e t h e c r i t i c i s ms th a t m ig h t b e l e v ie d a g a in s t a n a p p lic a tio n o f th e m a x im u m re c o v e r y ru le , see F o ra d o ri v
. Ha rr is , 5 2 3 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 5 0 5 -0 6 n .2 1 -2 3 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), P a r k e r ’sN o. 08- 30031

4 ar gum e nti s una va i l i ng be c aus e i ti s i nc o ns i s t e nt w i t h t he ve r y l ang uag e o f t he
m a x im u m re c o v e r y ru le th a t it re lie s u p o n . W e ha ve h e ld th a t“ [ w ] e do n otrevers e a j u ry verdi ctf or exces si ven ess e xc e pto n t he st r o nge s tof sho w i ngs , butw he n a j ur y' s a w ar d e xc e e ds t he b o unds
o f r e as o nab l e r e c o ve r y, w e m us ts ugg e s ta r e m i t t i t uro ur s e l ve s o rdi r e c tt he d i stri ct cou rt t o d o so . ” D ixon v. I n t ' lHarvest er C o. , 754 F
. 2d 573 , 590 ( 5th C i r. 19 85 )

. “ [ W ] e a ppl y t he l o o s e l y de f i ne d ‘ m ax i m um r e c o ve r y rul e ’w he n de c i di ng w het hera r em i t t i t ur i s i n or der
. T hi s j udge- m ade rul e e ss ent i al l y pr ovi des t hat
w e w i l ldecl i n e to redu ce dam ages w h ere t h e am ou n taw arded i s not d i sp rop ortion a te to at l ea st on e f act u all y si m i l ar case f

r o m t he r e l e va nt j u ri sd i cti on . ” D ougl ass v. D elta A i r Lines, I n c. , 897 F
. 2d 133 6, 134 4 ( 5th C i r. 1990)

. W e l oo k att he “ r ough gui dance pr ovi ded byaw ar ds appro ved f ors i m i l ar i nj u ri es by t h e L ou i si an a ap pel l ate c ou rt s and t h e deci si on s of t h i s c ou rt
a p p l yin g L ou i sian a l a w . ” Mo o r e v . M / V AN GE LA , 353 F .3d 3 7 6 , 385 ( 5th C i r. 2003) ( appl yi ng Loui si ana l aw t o de t er m i ne dam a ge s i n ac c i denti nvol vi ng a lo n g s h o r e m a n o n a v e s s e l). In t h i s c ase, C am pb el l ’ s i nju rie s an d d am age aw ard are si m i l ar t o t h ose i n Nie ls e n v . No r th b a n k To w ing, In c ., 768 So. 2d 145 , 157

- 61 (La

. A pp . 1stC i r. 2 000) , a fac t ual l y s i m i l arc as e f r o m t he r e l e va ntj ur i s di c t i o n. C a m p b e ll pr e s e n t ed e vi de nc e t hathe l o s ti nt e r e s ti n pr e vi o us ho bb i e s , s uc h a s r ai s i ng ani m al s , w o r ki ng o n c ar s , a nd p l ay i ng w i t h h i s do gs . Ac c o r di ng t o t e s t i m o ny f r om hi s w i fe a n d fr i ends, he no l ongers oc i al i ze s and pushes hi s fam i l y aw ay. H i s personal i t y h as al so cha n ged f rom ha vi n g a posi t i ve t o a neg ati ve ou t l ook on l i fe . H i s per s o nal i t y c hang e ca us e d m ar i t aldi f f i c ul t i e s a nd s e xua ldy s f unc t i o n. Ca m p b e l la l s o pr e s e n t e d s i g n i f i c a n tme d i c a le v i d e n c e c o n f i r m i n gh i s P TS D. An i n dep en den tm edi calexam i n er, D r. T h om pson , an d h i s p e rs o n aldoct or, D r. Ber ar d, b o t h di ag no s e d Cam pb e l lw i t h P TSD t hati s c aus e d b y a l i fe - t hr e at e ni ng eve nt t hat i nvoked f

earand h el pl es sne ss . C am pbel lw as pr ovi ded ps yc hol ogi c alN o. 08- 30031

The parti es a gre ed tha tt he plaintiff “re covered from th e physic al inj uri es” h e 1 su st ain ed
. Nielsen , 7 6 8S o. 2 d at 1 5 8
. Th e onlyb a si s f orth e da ma gesawardwa s PT SD. I d
. 5 m e di c at i o n, but hi s c o ndi t i o n s t i l l m ag ni f i e d hi s phy s i c al pa i n and caused i r r e gul ars l e e pi ng pa t t e r ns . H i s pa i n c aus e d hi m s e ve r e a gi t at i o n, a nge r , a nd
r es ent m entl eadi ng t o s eve r alm aj ordi sput es w i t h hi s w i fe a nd f r i ends. H e had d is t r e s s in gd r e a m s a n d h a s s o m e fe a ro f e n c lo s e d s p a c e s a n d w a t e r . C a m p b e ll ’s p o s t-t r a u m a tic s tr e s s d is o r d e rla s te d o v e rth r e e y e a r s . A s t he t r i al c our t not ed, t he eve nt s and i nj ury r ec ount ed i n t hi s c as e b ear
m u c h fa c tu a l s im ila r ity t o t h o s e in Nie ls e n , 768 S o. 2d at 157

- 61. N i el sen w as a d i ve r w h o w a s “f

orce d t o a b a n d on sh i p [b eca u se o f a h u rrican e] an d j u m p i n to t h e t h i rt y t o t h i rt y- f

i ve f ootseas. A l t h ou gh severalot h er i n di vi du al s and cr ew m e m be r s pe r i s he d at s e a, pl ai nt i f f m ana ge d t o s w i m t o a l i fe r af t
. Af t e rf i ght i ng th e s e a s fo r h o u r s in th e life ra ft, h e w a s re s c u e d b y ” a n o th e rb o a t. Id
. a t1 5 1
. At tr ia l, th e e x p e r t w itn e s s “o p in e d th a t N ie ls e n w a s p e r m a n e n tly a n d to ta lly di sabl ed f

rom w orki n g on the op en w ateran d that he w ou l d conti n u e t o need psych i atr i c c are f

or app roxi m atel y t w o m ore y e a rs t o deal w i t h hi s s ym ptom s. A s of t h e t i m e of

t ri al , N i el sen st ated t h at w h i l e hi s s ym ptom s are n otas sever e, he c o nt i nue s t o s uf fe rf r o m f l as hba c ks , ni ght m ar e s , g e n eral p ar ano i a and
a n xiety.” Id
. at1 61
. I n Ni e ls e n, t h e L ou i si an a courts up h el d a gen eraldam ages a w a r d o f $ 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 fo rP T S D
. I d. at 157

- 61. N i el sen an d C am pb el l ’ s i nj u ri es are 1
c o m pa r ab l e . Par ke r pr e s e nt s m any da m ag e s awar ds c as e s f rom L o ui s i ana c our t s, butnone o f t hes e c as es ar e fac t ual l y s i m i l arorpr es entfac t ual l y s i m i l ar inju r ie s . W e th e r e fo r e re ly o n th e m o s t c o m p a r a b le ca s e , Nie ls e n , w h i ch aw arded $3 50 , 00 0 f

o rPTSD
. Bas e d o n t he a w ar d i n Nie ls e n , a federal courtcoul d aw ard
u p to $46 5, 500 ( 133 % of t h e Ni elsen a w ar d) , w hi c h i s m o r e t han 2. 3 t i m e s t he
a w a r d in t h i s ca s e . D o ug la s s , 8 9 7 F .2 d a t 1 3 4 4 n .1 4 . T h e a w a r d h e r e o n ly
accoun t s f

o r ap proxi m atel y 43% of t h e m axim u m aw ard p erm i t t ed u n derN o. 08- 30031

For the first tim e ini t s rep lybrief, Parker re que sts thi s court toremand the 2 compen satorydama geaward so that th e trialcourt may analy ze thepote ntial fo r co ntributory fault. We “will not consi der a clai m raise d for the first time in a replybrief.” Has pe l &Da vis Mi ll in g &Pla n n in

g C o. v . Bd
. of

Lev eeC

om m'rs, 4 9 3F .3 d 5 7 0 , 5 7 9n .2 9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). P ark e r j u s tif

i e s r ai s i n g thi s n e w i s s u e b a s e d o n a r e c e nt d e c i s i o n o f thi s c ou rt , J oh nso nv . Cenac To wing, In c. , 54 4 F .3d 2 96, 303 -04 (5thC ir. 2 008). P arker’s jus t if ic at ionis without merit because Joh nsonspecificallyrelied on previou s case s to find contributoryn egligencefor ase a me nwho co nce ale d mate ri al me dical info rm ation . I d
. (quo ting Savoiev. Ot toC and ies, In c. , 692 F.2d363, 372 (5t h Cir
. 1982) and citi ng Gavagan v. Un ited States , 95 5 F .2d 1 016(5th C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ))

. Joh nsonis not an interve nin g decision that provi des an “important clarification 6 Nie ls e n . T h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s a n d t h e i nj u r y h e r e a r e n o ts o d i f fe r e n tf r o m Ni elsen t hat 4 3% of t he a w ar d g r ant e d i n Ni e ls e n i s “ cl earl y excessive” or

“ di s pr o po r t i o nat e ” s o a s t o w ar r antre m i t t ur . W e dec l i ne t o appl y t he m ax i m um recover y rul e i n t h i s c ase. I I . Th e D i s t r i ctC ourt D i d N ot A buse I t s D i s cr et i on i n A w ar di ng P r ej u d g m e n t I n t e r e s t By Us i n g An I n t e r e s t Ra t e Hi g h e r Th an t he FederalR at e.

“ Set t i ng t he r at e o f

i nt er es ton a j udgm enti s w i t hi n t he t r i alc our t ' s br oad d i scre ti on . ” R e e le dTu b ing, I n c . v . M / V

C h a dG , 794 F
. 2d 102 6, 102 9- 30 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ) (d is c u s s in gth e s e tt in go f th e in te r e s t r a te in a n a d m ir a lty ca s e ). W e revi ew a di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o aw ard i n t erestbas e d o n a st ate and not fe d e r a l ra te fo ra n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Id
. at1 02 9. I n R e e le dTu b ing, we a ck n ow l ed ge d tha t a d i stri ct cou rt’ s d ecisi on to aw a rd i n teres t ba sed on a sta te
r a te d o e s n o t t r a n s g r e s s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is c r e tio n . Id
. a t1 0 2 9
. F o rt h e s a me reasons , t he us e o f Loui s i ana ’ s r at e t o de t e r m i ne t he i nt e r e s t r at e i n t h i s c ase w o u ld n o t b e a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Id
. T h e bu rden i s on t h e ap pel l an t t o show
s o m e “in e q u ity ” t h a t c o m p e ls th is co u r t t o ch o o s e a d iffe r e n t r a te
. Id
. at1029- 30; G ulf gat e Mari ne Trans

p. Co. v. A/SD ampsk i bs s e ls kabe tS ve ndborg( I n reM /V Nic o le Tr a h a n), 1 0 F .3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 7 (5 t h C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ) (a ff ir m in g t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s cho ice u n l ess ap pel l an tshow ed “i n equ i t y”)

. P arker presents no evi den ce of i ne qui t y ap ar tf

r o m t he fac tt hatC am pb e l lge t s a hi ghe rr e t ur n. W e a f f i r m t he t r i alc o ur t ’ s pr ej udg m e nti nt e r e s ta w ar d. 2N o. 08- 30031

in th e law, a n d refu sal to [app ly th e ca se] wo uldh ave re sult edinp erpetu atin ginco rr ect law.” Am. In t ’l

Sp ec ia lt y L inesIns. C

o. v . Res- C

are I n c. , 529F .3d 6 49, 661 n .28 (5thC ir. 2 008). We will not consi der this argument. 7 B. Cam pbe l l ’ s Cont e nt i ons I. T h e D a m a g e A w a rd s A re N o t “ C l ea rl y E rro n eo u s” O n cr o s s -a p p e a l, C a m p b e ll co n te n d s t h a t th e a w a r d s fo rh is P T S D a n d h is back i nj u ry shou l d h ave been hi gh er. T h i s c ou rtrevi ew s d a m ages aw ards f or “cl ea r erro r. ” S ee A l ba ny I n s. Co. v. B enga lMari n e, I n c. , 8 5 7 F
. 2 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 3 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 98 8) ( “ D am ag e s ne e d no tbe pr o ve n wi t h a n e xa c tde gr e e o f s pe c i f i c i t y, a nd
w e r evi ew t he aw ar d under t he c l ear l y e r r oneo u s stan d ar d. ” )

. “ ‘ [A ] fac t ual f i n di n g m ay be set asi de u n der t h e cl earl y erroneou s r u l e on l y i f w e are l ef

t , on r evi ew of t he evi denc e, w i t h t he f i r m and def

i ni t e c onvi c t i on t hat a m i st ake had b ee n com m i tted.’” McD a n iel v. T emp le In d ep . S ch o o l D ist. , 770 F. 2d 1340, 1347 ( 5t h C i r . 1985) ( quot i ng O i l, C h em . an dA t om i c W orkers I n t ' lUn i on v. E t hyl Cor p. , 7 03 F. 2d 9 33 , 9 35 ( 5t h C i r. 1 98 3) )

. Af t e rr e vi e w i ng t he r e c o r d a nd consi deri n g t h e bri efs an d oralargu m en t s of t h e parti es, w e f

i n d n o cl ear err or in th e s e a w a r d s . Cam pb e l la l s o r e que s t s a n a ddi t i o nal$ 20 0, 00 0 f o rm e nt ala ngu i s h; C am pb el l , i n hi s or i gi n alcl ai m , onl y speci f i es “ post- t rau m ati c s t ress di sorder”
as hi s ps yc ho l o gi c ali nj ur y and not“ m e nt ala ngu i s h. ” Lo ui s i ana c o ur t s , i n m any i nst ance s, have t r eat ed m ent alangui sh and po st
- t r aum at i c s t ress d i so r deras d escr i b i n g th e sa m e ca teg ory of i nj u ry i f th e p l a i n ti ff i s ac tu a l l y d i a gn ose d w i th P T S D
. S e e , e .g ., S e a ls v . S h e lte rIn s . Co s ., 894 S o. 2d 1259, 1262- 63 ( La. A pp. 2d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); W

e lls v . Mo rg a n G a s Co ., 651 So. 2d 951 , 954

- 55 (La

. A pp . 2d C i r. 1995 )

. M o r e o ve r , i n Nie ls e n , t h e p r i m a r y p s y c h o l o g i c a li nj u r y wa s P TS D, a nd t hats e r ve d a s a b as i s f o ra $ 35 0, 00 0 ge ne r alda m ag e s aw ard fora l lt he p s y c h ia tr ic inju r ie s a lle g e d
. Nie ls e n , 768 So. 2d at 158
. B y com pa ri n g t h e aw ardN o. 08- 30031

Unlike Ra n dol

phv . Lae isz, 896F .2d 964 , 96 7-68(5th Cir. 1 990), C ampbe ll does not 3 a sse rt anyc le ar erro r inP ark er’se xpe rt’sme thodf orc alculatin gC a mp b ell’ s los t wa ges . Ca mpbellonlycontends that it was an unsuitab le metho d inthis ca se. 8 t o Nie ls e n , t h e t r ia l co u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e r r in a w a r d in g$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 fo rC a m p b e ll ’s p s y c h ia tr ic inju r y . I I . T h e T r i a l C o u r t D i d N o t C l e a r l y E r r i n R e l y i n g o n a n E x p e r t ’s C a l cu l a ti o n of L o st W a g es. C a m p b e llc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u r tc le a r ly e r r e d i n r e ly in go n P a r k e r ’s exp ert ’ s c al cul ati on of l ostw ages an d n oton C am pb el l ’ s expert ’ s c al cul ati on of l o s tw ag e s . I n C u lv e rv . S la te rB o a t C o ., w e st ated t h at “ ca l cul ati on of t h e l ost i n c o me s t r e a m begi ns w i t h t h e gross earni n gs of t h e i nj u red pa rt y at t h e t i m e of i nj u ry. ” 722 F
. 2d 114 , 117 ( 5th C i r. 198 3) ( em ph asi s add ed). I n subsequ en tcases , w e c al c ul at e d t he “ gr o s s e ar ni ngs ” a tt he t i m e o f i nj ur y bye s t i m at i ng t he
e a r n in g s fr o m p a s t d a ta w h e n e a r n in g s d a ta w a s in c o n s is te n t. S ee, e. g. , Herber t
v . W a l-Ma r t S to r e s , In c ., 9 1 1 F .2 d 1 0 4 4 , 1 0 5 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ); He r nan dezv. M /V R a ja a n , 841 F
. 2d 582 , 587

- 88 (5t h C i r. 198 8) (rel yi n g on part- t i m e ea rn i n gs of th e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s to d e r iv e fu tu r e e a r n in g s lo s s ); s e e a ls o Noa c k v . Am
. S. S. C o. , 4 91 F
. 2d 9 37, 9 42 ( 6th C i r. 1 974 ) (usi n g a f i ve year peri od to est i m ate prei nj u ry earni n gs b ecau se of the f l u ct u ati on s i n ea rni n gs)

. C on si st en tw i t h t h ese au t h ori t i es, P arker’ s expertrel i ed on C am pb el l ’ s average earn i n gs over t h e past f i ve ye a rs becau se of C am pb el l ’ s i n consi st en tw ork h i st ory. C am pb el l ’ s expert ackn ow l edg ed that C am pb el l“ w as not a 40 h ou r a w eek w orker by an y st ret ch
o f t h e im a g in a t io n .” T h e tr ia l c o u r tb a s e d it s o p in io n o n P a r k e r ’s e x p e r t ’s
o p in io n ; i t s fa c tu a l fin d in gis n o t c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s . S e e , e.g ., G a tes v. S h ell Offs h o r e , In c ., 8 8 1 F .2d 2 1 5 , 2 1 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). 3 F o rth e re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , w e A F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t in al lres pects
.