Opinion ID: 167994
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lost Future W ages Claim

Text: W e next consider Union Pacific’s argument that M r. Chaffin presented insufficient evidence on his lost future wages claim. W e have explained that FELA entitles a claimant “to the difference between what he was able to earn prior to his injury and what he . . . could have earned thereafter.” Tayler v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 438 F.2d 351, 354 (10th Cir. 1971). Union Pacific contends that M r. Chaffin is not entitled to any lost future wages because he did not present sufficient evidence of what he earned prior to the injury. Specifically, Union Pacific points to the fact that he did not submit W -2s or testify as to the exact amount of his wages prior to the accident. Because of this lack of evidence, Union Pacific argues that the jury could not accurately calculate the extent of M r. Chaffin’s diminished earnings capacity. Union Pacific’s contention ignores that one of its own representatives testified at trial that conductors like M r. Chaffin earn $75,000 to $80,000 each year. W e acknowledge that W -2s or other evidence of actual past w ages w ould have certainly assisted the jury in coming to a determination about what M r. Chaffin would have earned but for the injury. For the years 1999 to 2003, however, when M r. Chaffin was still attempting to work at the railroad, he detailed the specific amount of money that he lost after taking time off because of 19 his injury. Rec. vol. IV, at 573. Additionally, the record makes clear that M r. Chaffin’s earnings history may not have been particularly relevant to what he would have earned but for his injury. M r. Stang testified that the earnings of all conductors had increased in the past few years. Rec. vol. III, at 476. Finally, it was within the jury’s discretion to discount the ranges of conductors’ earnings M r. Stang provided, depending upon whether they credited M r. Chaffin’s testimony that he had planned to work as much as M r. Stang once he finished raising his children. Our review of the record shows that M r. Chaffin presented sufficient evidence for the district court to submit his lost future earnings claim to the jury. C. Jury Instructions on L ost Future W ages Union Pacific’s final argument on appeal is that the district court erred by giving Instruction 23 to the jury, permitting them to aw ard damages based on M r. Chaffin’s lost future wages. “[W]e review the district court’s decision to give a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion and consider the instructions as a whole de novo to determine whether they accurately informed the jury of the governing law.” United Stats v. Platte, 401 F.3d 1176, 1183 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Union Pacific objected to Instruction 23, particularly paragraph three, which allowed the jury to consider M r. Chaffin’s lost future wages claim. Union 20 Pacific concedes in its opening brief that this argument is a “corollary to its challenge to the sufficiency of Chaffin’s claim for future lost wages.” A plt’s Br. at 44, 46. Because we held that M r. Chaffin presented “sufficient competent evidence” to prove his lost future w ages claim, we hold that the district court properly instructed the jury on this element of damages as well. Perlmutter v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 4 F.3d 864, 872 (10th Cir. 1993); see Allen v. Wal-M art Stores, 241 F.3d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir. 2001) (“A party is entitled to an instruction on their theory of the case so long as the instruction is supported by competent evidence on the issue or theory supporting the instruction.”) (citing Perlmutter, 4 F.3d at 871).