Opinion ID: 1791143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Loss in Earning Capacity

Text: Kmart contends that the Court of Civil Appeals' reversal of that portion of the trial court's judgment holding that Ridlespurge had suffered a 40% loss in earning capacity was improper. The Court of Civil Appeals wrote: [T]he record does not contain substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Ridlespurge was not permanently and totally disabled. Ridlespurge, 812 So.2d at 1203. In its order, the trial court stated: While the Court questions the degree and source of the Plaintiffs pain and discomfort[,] the Court finds that the Plaintiff has sustained a loss of earning capacity as a result of the reported injury and subsequent surgical procedures to the Plaintiffs right shoulder. The Court has considered the testimony of both the Plaintiffs and [the] Defendant's vocational experts. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs expert's opinion is too high and the Defendant's is too low. Instead, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has sustained a loss of earning capacity of 40 percent, for which the Plaintiff is entitled to permanent partial benefits. (Emphasis added.) The evidence regarding Ridlespurge's loss of earning capacity indicates as follows: Dr. Rivard testified in his deposition that Ridlespurge had suffered a 10% impairment of the whole person. [7] Dr. James Flanagan, a surgeon who performed two surgeries on Ridlespurge's right shoulder, testified in his deposition that although he had not assigned an impairment rating to Ridlespurge, he agreed with Rivard's conclusions about her loss of earning capacity. [8] Ridlespurge's vocational expert Claude Peacock testified at trial that when he first examined Ridlespurge, he thought she was totally vocationally disabled. [9] However, Mr. Peacock later testified that he assigned Ridlespurge a 35% less of earning capacity when he evaluated her ability to work. [10] Finally, Ridlespurge testified as to her condition and her ability to work. (R. 20-24.) The trial court's findings, if supported by the evidence, are conclusive. Ex parte Golden Poultry Co., 772 So.2d 1175, 1176 (Ala.2000). It is well established that in workers' compensation cases a trial court has considerable discretion in determining an employee's loss of earning capacity. Ex parte Alabama Ins. Guaranty Ass'n, 667 So.2d 97, 100 (Ala.1995). Further, a trial court is not bound by the opinions of expert witnesses, even if the testimony of those witnesses is uncontroverted. Ex parte Beaver Valley Corp., 477 So.2d 408, 411 (Ala.1985). Our review of the record indicates that the testimony and the evidence presented at trial support the trial court's finding that Ridlespurge suffered a 40% loss in earning capacity as a result of the injury to her right shoulder. It is apparent from the order that the trial court focused on the opinions of the expert witnesses in ascertaining Ridlespurge's earning-capacity loss. The trial court's statement in its order that [Mr. Peacock]'s opinion is too high demonstrates that the trial court mistakenly relied on Mr. Peacock's initial assessment that Ridlespurge was totally vocationally disabled. However, as explained above, Mr. Peacock's opinion at trial was that Ridlespurge had suffered a loss of earning capacity in the range of 35%. Certainly, the trial court's finding of a 40% loss of earning capacity is within the range of 35%. Furthermore, the trial court had the benefit of observing Ridlespurge as she testified regarding her ability to perform certain work-related tasks. Thus, we conclude that the trial court's finding that Ridlespurge suffered a 40% earning loss was supported by substantial evidence. We hold that the Court of Civil Appeals improperly substituted its judgment for the trial court's judgment in this respect, and we reverse that portion of its judgment.