Harbison Walker Refractories v. McKaig
| Decision Date | 04 April 1990 |
| Citation | 567 So.2d 324 |
| Parties | HARBISON WALKER REFRACTORIES v. Derrell McKAIG. Civ. 7067. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
John S. Civils, Jr. of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, for appellant.
Louis W. Scholl, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case.
Derrell C. McKaig (employee) filed a complaint, alleging that he suffered an on-the-job injury to his right arm while working as a machinist for Harbison Walker Refractories (employer). After an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court found that the employee sustained a 30% permanent partial disability and awarded compensation including vocational rehabilitation. Following an ore tenus proceeding on the employer's post-trial motions, the trial court amended the order to read "40% permanent partial disability" and deleted provisions for vocational rehabilitation. The employer appeals.
The employer raises several issues on appeal. We find the dispositive issue to be whether the trial court erred in finding the employee permanently partially disabled.
We first note our limited standard of review in workmen's compensation cases as set out recently by our supreme court in Ex parte Patterson, 561 So.2d 236 (Ala.1990).
(Citation omitted.)
The undisputed evidence reveals that the employee was injured in September 1987, while performing his job as a machinist for the employer. The employee had worked his way up during his 17-year employment with the employer to a position requiring special knowledge and skills.
After the accident and the resulting unsuccessful surgery, the employee could no longer perform the specialized skills of his previous job. The employee continues employment with the employer in a job requiring a lower skill level.
There was conflicting testimony regarding the employee's physical limitations and earning capacity after the injury. The employer contends that the employee currently performs similar work for wages that are higher than before the injury. The employee contends that the current job he performs is not the same skill level and that the increase in wages is due to a contract raise. There was testimony from a vocational expert that the employee suffered a loss of earning capacity and a loss of access to the number of jobs available to the employee due to the injury. Upon questioning by the trial court, the employee testified to a limitation in motion of the affected arm, chronic pain, and the loss of strength, which limited his activities since the injury.
It is well established that the trial court has much discretion in workmen's compensation cases in determining an employee's loss of earning capacity when the evidence is in dispute. DeHart v. Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., 527 So.2d 136 (Ala.Civ....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M & H Valve Co. v. Carmichael
...or omissive, the reviewing court may refer to the record to determine whether the judgment should be upheld. Harbison Walker Refractories v. McKaig, 567 So.2d 324 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). In this case, we find that the trial court's order contains sufficient detail to indicate that its findings ......
-
Dun & Bradstreet Corp. v. Jones
...cases in determining an employee's loss of earning capacity when the evidence is in dispute." Harbison Walker Refractories v. McKaig, 567 So.2d 324, 325 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). "The trial court must look to the entire evidence and to its own observations in determining the extent of disability.......