Opinion ID: 518423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Future Wage Loss

Text: 32 The base figure used to calculate future wage loss is the difference between what a person could have earned but for the accident and what he is able to earn upon returning to work in his partially disabled state. Dr. Boudreaux accepted that at the time of the accident Masinter earned a yearly amount of $38,950. However, due to the dramatic reduction of the oil and gas work force attributable to the sharp decline in oil prices, Dr. Boudreaux concluded that it would be conservative to project a 25% reduction in Masinter's salary. Thus, instead of annual earnings of $38,950, Dr. Boudreaux estimated Masinter's future earnings to equal $29,212.50. 33 This court has said that evidence concerning the economic conditions in the oil industry is relevant in determining whether the injured person will suffer any future losses. Book v. Nordrill, Inc., 826 F.2d 1457 (5th Cir.1987). Dr. Boudreaux testified that the oil and gas work force had been reduced by between forty and sixty percent. This downturn forced Hydril to lay off nine of eleven of its products representatives. From this Dr. Boudreaux concluded that even if Hydril retained Masinter his salary would be reduced. By contrast, Masinter presented no evidence to rebut these contentions. Although Masinter could have shown that Hydril's salaries were not reduced and that he would have been retained despite the industry downturn, he declined to do so. Thus, based on the evidence in the record, we cannot say that it was clearly erroneous to conclude that but for the injury Masinter would have earned 75% of his 1984 earnings. 34 As mentioned, future wage loss is based on the difference between what Masinter could have earned, in this case 75% of 1984 earnings or $29,212.50, and what Masinter is able to earn. Marlin appeals the district court's finding that Masinter would only be able to return to work at minimum wage. Based on the evidence presented, we conclude that this finding is clearly erroneous. All of the evidence, including that adduced from Masinter's own physician, indicate that Masinter is an intelligent man with a high school diploma months away from receiving a business degree from a junior college. Since Masinter was laid off in July of 1986, he has applied for positions as a product representative with Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics which, according to a U.S. Department of Labor handbook, pay approximately $24,000 annually. Although Masinter has received form letters stating that positions are currently unavailable, there is no indication that Masinter has not been hired because of his physical disability. We think it is also significant that Masinter had not applied for positions only paying minimum wage. After careful review of the record, we are unable to locate any support for calculating future lost wages based on Masinter's ability to only earn minimum wage. Calculation of future wage loss should have been predicated on the only assumption supported by the record, i.e. that Masinter was qualified to secure employment paying $24,000 per year. The failure to do so was clearly erroneous. 35 The future wage loss calculation based on the erroneous assumption that Masinter would only be able to return to work at minimum wage resulted in an excessive judgment. Having determined that an award is excessive, this court may either order a new trial on damages or may give the plaintiff the option of avoiding a new trial by agreeing to a remittitur of the excessive portion of the award. Hernandez, 841 F.2d at 587. We follow this circuit's maximum recovery rule under which a remittitur may reduce the award only to the maximum amount the district court could properly have awarded. Id. 36 Given the present record, the only proper award for future wage loss should have incorporated Masinter's ability to earn $24,000 annually. Based on the undisputed discount factor of 5.75%, Masinter's ability to earn $24,000 in the future, and a 25% reduction in his 1984 salary, Dr. Boudreaux calculated the after-tax, present value of lost future wages to equal $60,487. Thus, the proper award should have been: 37 Past Wage Loss ......................... $30,392.00 Pain and Suffering ...................... 50,000.00 Future Wage Loss ........................ 60,487.00 ------------- Total ................................. $140,879.00 Less 40% (contributory negligence) ...... 56,351.60 ------------- Masinter's Net Recovery ............... $ 84,527.40 38 We hold that solely with respect to the issue of future wage loss Masinter may either agree to a remittitur in the amount of $124,301.40, or he may opt for a new trial on this issue. 39