Gibson v. Southern Stone Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1987 |
| Citation | 518 So.2d 730 |
| Parties | Thomas GIBSON v. SOUTHERN STONE COMPANY, INC., a corporation. Civ. 5959. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
James R. Bowles of Bowles & Cottle, Tallassee, for appellant.
Jacob A. Walker III of Walker, Hill, Adams, Umbach & Meadows, Opelika, for appellee.
The employee was injured while employed at Southern Stone Company, Inc., and sought benefits from the employer under Alabama workmen's compensation laws.
The trial court found that the employee sustained a 20% permanent partial loss of ability to earn and awarded him benefits accordingly. The employee appeals.
We note that this is the second time that this case has been before us. For a complete statement of the facts see Gibson v. Southern Stone Co., 500 So.2d 32 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).
The dispositive issue on this appeal is whether there is any legal evidence to support the trial court's finding of a 20% permanent partial loss of ability to earn.
Initially we note that this case is before this court on certiorari. Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(a). Our review is thus limited to questions of law and to an examination of the evidence to determine if there is any legal evidence to support the findings of the trial court. If there is any legal evidence that supports the findings, this court will affirm. Lowe v. Walters, 491 So.2d 962 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).
In the present case, there was testimony from two vocational consultants that the employee sustained a 50% permanent partial loss of ability to earn. The employee therefore argues that the evidence is uncontroverted and that he is entitled to receive benefits based on a 50% loss of ability to earn. We disagree.
It is well settled that expert opinions in workmen's compensation cases are not binding on the trial court even if the testimony is uncontroverted. Blue Bell, Inc. v. Nichols, 479 So.2d 1264 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Carroll Construction Co. v. Hutcheson, 347 So.2d 527 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). Further, in arriving at its judgment, the trial court may consider all the evidence before it, as well as its own observations of the witnesses. The trial court may then interpret what it has heard and observed, according to its own best judgment. Armstrong v. Lewis & Associates Construction Co., 469 So.2d 605 (Ala.Civ.App.1984).
Therefore, the trial court here was not bound by the opinions of the experts who testified concerning the employee's loss of ability to earn. Instead, the trial court could also consider other evidence, including that of the two doctors who testified that the employee had sustained a 25% medical impairment to his hand, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Austin, CR-90-524
...compensation cases, such as Jackson v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp., 487 So.2d 940, 941 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Gibson v. Southern Stone Co., 518 So.2d 730, 731 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Bentley, 560 So.2d 1072, 1074 (Ala.Civ.App.1990); Ex parte Beaver Valley Corp., 477 So......
-
Crimson Industries, Inc. v. Eller
...based on all the evidence. See Reed v. James R. Fincher Timber Co., 659 So.2d 660, 663 (Ala.Civ. App.1995); Gibson v. Southern Stone Co., 518 So.2d 730, 731 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); Armstrong v. Lewis & Associates Construction Co., 469 So.2d 605 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). However, a trial court's find......
-
Gore v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.
...The trial court may then interpret what it has heard and observed, according to its own best judgment.’ Gibson v. Southern Stone Co., 518 So.2d 730, 731 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) ; see also Armstrong v. Lewis & Associates Construction Co., 469 So.2d 605 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). It is the trial court's ......
-
VI Prewett & Son, Inc. v. Brown
...The trial court may then interpret what it has heard and observed, according to its own best judgment.' Gibson v. Southern Stone Co., 518 So.2d 730, 731 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). Additionally, the assignment of the extent of disability is within the trial court's discretion and cannot be disturbe......