Simmons v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1993
• Citation: 631 So.2d 1055
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
• Parties: Howard SIMMONS v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY. AV92000397.

Page 1055

631 So.2d 1055

Howard SIMMONS v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY.

AV92000397.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 17, 1993.

David B. Carnes of Carnes, Wamsley, Waid & Hyman, P.C., Gadsden, for appellant.

James W. McGlaughn and F. Michael Haney of Inzer, Stivender, Haney & Johnson, P.A., Gadsden, for appellee.

THIGPEN, Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case.

In July 1991, Howard Simmons filed a complaint for workmen's compensation benefits against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, alleging that, as a result of an on-the-job accident in June 1986, he sustained permanent physical impairment to his back and arm and a permanent total loss of his ability to earn. Following ore tenus proceedings, the trial court found that Simmons had sustained a nerve injury to his right arm and an injury to his lower back, resulting in a 90% vocational impairment. The trial court awarded workmen's compensation benefits accordingly, and Simmons appeals.

The only dispute involves the extent of the injury. Simmons contends that a reasonable view of the evidence would result in a determination that he was permanently and totally disabled.

At the outset, we note that in workmen's compensation cases, our review is limited to determining if there is any legal evidence to support the trial court's findings, and then determining whether a reasonable view of that evidence supports the trial court's judgment. Ex parte Eastwood Foods, Inc., 575 So.2d 91 (Ala.1991).

The record reveals that Simmons was fifty-one years old and married at the time of the hearing. He has a high school education, and he has also taken an emergency medical technician course that enabled him to serve on the Etowah County Rescue Squad for a period of six years. Prior to his employment with Goodyear, he was employed for five years with the State Highway Department as an engineering assistant performing survey and office work. Prior to the injury, he was employed for approximately twenty years as a "clean-up" worker at a Goodyear warehouse, and for one year as a material handler for Goodyear. Although Simmons had experienced some past medical problems with his right arm, testimony revealed that he had been working without restrictions or limitations prior to the June 1986 injury. Simmons's wife testified that Simmons did not return to work following the June 1986 injury, and that he had retired from Goodyear based on disability. She further testified that he was no longer able to perform routine activities and tasks, and that he frequently kept his right arm immobilized with a sling because the arm was painful a majority of the time. She also testified that Simmons suffered a head injury in 1989, as the result of a fall in the home.

Permanent total disability is the inability to perform one's trade or to obtain reasonably gainful employment, and it does not mean absolute helplessness. Genpak Corp. v. Gibson, 534 So.2d 312 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). It is the duty of the trial court to determine the extent of the disability. Genpak, supra. The assignment of the extent of the disability is a discretionary function of the trial court. Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063 (...