Court Opinion

ID: 9527234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:28:44.335233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.226707
License: Public Domain

JONES, Justice
(concurring specially).
I am in complete agreement with the result reached and the reasoning employed by the majority opinion. Caution should be exercised, however, not to construe the opinion to infer that had the trial Court disallowed Newman’s testimony we would likewise hold such ruling errorless.
The discretion which the law accords the trial judge in the admissibility vel non of expert testimony is limited to the qualifications of the offered expert witness. See Southern Cement Co. v. Sproul, 378 F.2d 48 (5th Cir., 1967). The discretion allowed the trial judge goes to the weighing of the qualifications of the witness to testify as an expert, while the admissibility of the substance of his expert opinion (i. e., other than his qualifications) is governed by more definitive rules' of evidence. Where the plaintiff, as here, is claiming damages for decreased capacity to earn due to personal injury, admissibility of expert testimony bearing on this issue is beyond the discretionary powers of the trial Court. That the issue of plaintiff’s claim of unemployability in the labor market, which is a material consideration in the ultimate determination of her capacity to earn, is within the expertise of Newman seems beyond question.
It is interesting, indeed, to review the contextual background in which the issue before us in this case arises. Traditionally, these cases (claims for personal injuries in damage suits and workmen’s compensation cases) have been submitted to the triers of facts on the expert testimony of medical doctors. Proof of loss of future wages, or decreased capacity to earn, has generally been left to the exclusive province of the M. D. We have fallen into this error despite the medical profession’s own admonition that their expertise in this field is limited to physiological impairment and their express warning that they do not profess to be experts in the area of occupational disability.'1
Ironically, then, we have for so long followed an erroneous practice of depending on proof of decreased capacity to earn by self-professed non-experts that when an occupational specialist (a true expert in this field) is called for this purpose the reaction is one of shock and dismay; or, stated more bluntly, we have done it wrong for so long that when an attempt is made to do it right an objection is thereby invoked.
To be sure, this is a two-edged sword, fully capable of cutting both ways. This can be illustrated by taking as an example two separate claimants, each being right *267handed and each having lost his left little finger, one being a banker and the other a professional violinist. The former may have no loss of earning capacity while the latter may be occupationally totally and permanently disabled. And, yet, the medical testimony, which is limited to impairment, is the same for both claimants. While the doctor’s opinion of the claimant’s organic or functional impairment is material (indeed, as here, it was essential to the hypothesis included in the question posed to Newman), additional expert testimony on the ultimate issue of loss of earning capacity is unquestionably admissible. The ultimate issue of the loss of future earnings or future earning capacity is necessarily dependent upon factors which include, but go beyond, the state of plaintiff’s health, e. g., age, education, training, availability and susceptibility of rehabilitation, availability of employment, hiring practices, and other sociological considerations.2

. For the full context of this admonition, see the preface that accompanies each of the disability evaluation pamphlets published and distributed by the American Medical Association.

. For an appropriate charge on the loss of future earnings or future earning capacity, see Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions— Civil, Damages 11.11.