Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates
Citations: 158 P.3d 877; 215 Ariz. 154; 505 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 20; 2007 Ariz. App. LEXIS 84Docket: 1 CA-CV 05-0719
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; May 22, 2007; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Physiotherapy Associates appeals a trial court's rulings and the damages awarded to Kenneth Felder. The court affirmed the jury's determination of Felder's lost earning capacity as a professional baseball player. Felder was drafted by the Milwaukee Brewers in 1992 and advanced through their minor league system until an elbow injury in 1996, which required surgery in 1997. After rehabilitation at Physiotherapy, Felder was cleared to begin batting practice. However, the facility's batting cage was not designed for such use, lacking proper maintenance and safety measures. On February 25, 1998, during a scheduled rehabilitation session, Felder was injured when a ball hit a concrete lip in the batter's box and struck his left eye. Medical examinations revealed serious injuries, including an orbital bone fracture and retinal damage, resulting in significant vision impairment and chronic headaches. Initially, Felder had 20/400 vision in his left eye, which improved to 20/40 but left him with ongoing risks and complications. Felder reported to the Brewers' spring training camp about a week after injuring his eye but failed his physical examination and was subsequently dismissed from the camp. After two additional attempts to return, the Brewers released him from his contract. In August 1998, Felder filed a lawsuit against Physiotherapy. During the first trial in 2000, Felder's expert witness, agent Slade Mead, speculated on Felder's potential to reach the major leagues and the duration of his career, leading the jury to award $8,000,000 in damages, later reduced to $6,000,000 due to Felder being 25% at fault. On appeal, the court reversed the decision, finding that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on negligence and that Felder's evidence for lost earnings was overly speculative. The appellate court required stronger evidence on remand, clarifying that while it is possible for a minor league player to prove loss of earning capacity as a potential major leaguer, Felder's initial evidence was inadequate. The Arizona Supreme Court denied Felder's Petition for Review. During jury selection for the second trial, Physiotherapy struck a Hispanic woman, S.R., which Felder challenged as a racially motivated violation of equal protection under Batson v. Kentucky. The trial court found no race-neutral reason for the strike, reinstating S.R. to the jury. In the second trial, expert witness Al Goldis, with extensive experience in major league baseball, testified that Felder would have reached the major leagues and projected his career length to be between twelve and fifteen years. Goldis compared Felder's power to that of notable major league players, asserting that Felder had greater power than Frank Thomas, a player he had drafted. In the motion for partial summary judgment regarding lost earnings, the court acknowledged Mr. Goldis as a credible expert on baseball talent, deeming him more proficient than speculative witnesses, particularly regarding the likelihood of Felder making it into professional baseball. The jury learned that Felder received benefits typically given to major league players, including treatment and rehabilitation covered by the Brewers after his elbow injury in 1997. The Brewers chose to retain Felder on their AAA team rather than release him until an eye injury rendered him permanently unable to play professionally. Economic damages were assessed by Mead, who noted Felder's high-profile status as a first-round draft choice and compared his expected earnings to those of other successful players like Jeremy Burnitz and Geoff Jenkins, valuing Felder's potential seven-year career at approximately $27.79 million. Conversely, Physiotherapy presented expert testimony from Eddie Epstein and Steve Phillips, both asserting that Felder's prospects for reaching the major leagues were minimal. Physiotherapy also attempted to introduce testimony from Ralph Nelson regarding the Diamondbacks' decision not to sign Felder post-injury, arguing it was unrelated to his health status. However, the trial court excluded this testimony due to its potential hearsay issues and because it would likely duplicate Phillips' analysis. Subsequently, Physiotherapy filed various motions for judgment concerning Felder's claims, including negligence and lost income. The court denied the motion asserting Felder was a trespasser and allowed him to seek general damages for ongoing anxiety related to his injuries but prohibited claims for special damages related to future medical care or potential macular degeneration. The court denied Physiotherapy's motion for partial judgment concerning Felder's claim for lost earnings from potential major league baseball participation. The trial court noted that, despite Felder not having yet reached the major leagues, his opportunity to do so had been significantly impacted. There was sufficient evidence for reasonable jurors to debate Felder’s likelihood of making it to the major leagues, the duration of his potential career, and his compensation range. The court emphasized the jury's role in evaluating all evidence without bias towards either party. It stated that the jury could determine various outcomes regarding Felder’s potential career, including his longevity in minor or major leagues and the damages resulting from his injury. Consequently, the court found enough basis for the jury to assess Felder's potential earnings. In a subsequent jury trial, damages were awarded at $7,000,000 with Felder deemed 30% at fault, resulting in a net award of $4,900,000. Physiotherapy filed a motion for a new trial or remittitur, which the court denied, leading to Physiotherapy’s timely appeal. On appeal, Physiotherapy raises several issues, primarily contesting the denial of its motion for judgment on Felder's lost earnings claim and arguing that the evidence presented was as speculative as in the prior trial. Felder counters that the expert testimony provided was sufficient to establish damages with reasonable certainty. The appellate review of the trial court's ruling on the judgment motion is conducted de novo, with the court affirming that a motion should be granted only if no reasonable jury could find in favor of the claimant based on the presented evidence. Physiotherapy contests the sufficiency of evidence for Felder’s claim of lost earnings, arguing that the trial court erred by not recognizing the evidence as speculative. Under Arizona law, past and future lost wages are valid damages, allowing for recovery of actual damages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost earnings, and diminished earning capacity. While uncertainty in the amount of damages does not bar recovery, there must be a basis for estimating losses. Arizona case law stipulates that conjecture or speculation cannot justify damage awards; evidence must allow for an approximately accurate estimate. The requirements for such evidence vary based on case specifics, emphasizing that while complete certainty isn't necessary, a rational standard must guide the jury's decision. The Restatement of Torts also supports that proof of harm should be reasonably certain, yet acknowledges that a lack of complete certainty shouldn't deny substantial compensation to the injured. Courts recognize the jury's role in evaluating inherently uncertain evidence in personal injury cases. The core issue is whether the trial court appropriately trusted the jury's judgment regarding Felder's damage claim related to his earning capacity as a professional baseball player. Physiotherapy was found liable for Felder's injury, which directly ended his professional baseball career. The jury established the fact of damage, rejecting Physiotherapy's argument that Felder needed to prove he would have been promoted to the major leagues, clarifying that such a promotion would merely represent an advancement in his existing career rather than a separate career path. The excerpt acknowledges that mere aspirations for a professional athletic career do not suffice for jury consideration, as established in precedent cases. However, it also asserts that an injured person should not be denied substantial compensation due to the inability to prove the exact extent of harm. The Tennessee Court of Appeals highlighted that impairment of earning capacity may not correlate directly with a person's employment status at the injury time, allowing for claims related to future career advancements. Felder had more than speculative hopes for a successful baseball career, having been signed to a AAA contract at the time of his injury, which eliminated his opportunity for further progress in the sport. The determination of damages required a reasonable degree of certainty, which varies by circumstances and cause of action; juries are entrusted with assessing personal injury damages based on their judgment. Contrastingly, damages for future earning capacity are not recoverable in breach of employment contract cases due to speculative nature and lack of reasonable expectation by the parties. Courts require near-complete certainty in such cases, particularly regarding lost profits, where the distinction between the fact of damage and the amount may become unclear. The excerpt outlines the legal standards for proving lost profits in breach of contract cases, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating both the fact and amount of lost profits. In the case of Rancho Pescado, the plaintiff failed to prove successful business operation, leading the court to affirm that lost profits were not established. Similarly, in Coury Bros. Ranches, the evidence did not connect contract breach to losses. Once the existence of lost profits is established, courts are less stringent regarding the specific amount, favoring the plaintiff in cases of doubt. However, when future profit losses are claimed, a higher standard of "reasonable certainty" is required, as these losses can be approximated more accurately. Evidence supporting lost profits can include accounting records, tax returns, or profit histories from similar businesses. Disputes over evidence pertain to its weight rather than admissibility, with the jury tasked with assessing credibility. The determination of "reasonable certainty" varies with the case's specifics, acknowledging that some situations inherently lack predictability. For instance, a professional athlete cannot be expected to demonstrate absolute certainty in future earnings due to performance uncertainties. In the case discussed, the jury received extensive evidence on the athlete's past performance, expert evaluations, and compensation dynamics, which informed their deliberations on potential damages. The trial court allowed the issue of lost earning capacity related to Felder's baseball prospects to proceed to the jury, concluding that reasonable people could disagree on his potential for promotion to the major leagues. It was acknowledged that no one could definitively determine Felder's likelihood of being promoted or the duration of his career, but the jury found that an eye injury eliminated his opportunity. Physiotherapy contended that the decision contradicted a prior ruling requiring stronger evidence for Felder's claims, arguing that merely adding expert witness Goldis did not enhance the case. The court disagreed, clarifying that its earlier decision did not demand absolute certainty regarding Felder's promotion; rather, it required more credible evidence than the previous expert's speculative testimony. Goldis’s insights provided a necessary managerial perspective. Regarding the anxiety claim linked to the risk of future neovascularization, Physiotherapy argued for judgment as a matter of law, citing insufficient evidence and referencing a case (DeStories) where emotional damages were denied absent physical injury. However, since Felder sustained significant physical injuries, the court found DeStories inapplicable and concluded that he could recover for anxiety associated with his less than 1% risk of neovascularization. The court affirmed that it did not err in its decisions, and evidentiary rulings were generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, or de novo if based on legal questions. Physiotherapy contended that the court incorrectly excluded its statistical evidence regarding 'outrighted' players, compiled by expert Steve Phillips, which indicated that only 21.3% of such players advance to the major leagues and merely 3.4% remain there for over three years. This data was intended to counter claims made by Felder's experts concerning his career and earnings. However, the trial court expressed concerns about the timeliness of the evidence, noting that Felder had not had adequate opportunity to analyze the underlying data. Felder objected to the statistical analysis, arguing that the players in the study did not share similar skill sets or conditions with him and that the comparisons were irrelevant. The court echoed these concerns, stating it could not verify the accuracy of the data or its relevance to Felder’s individual circumstances. Ultimately, the court excluded the outright data but permitted Phillips to discuss the implications of being dropped from the 40-man roster. The trial court's discretion was upheld, as the evidence included a diverse group of players, primarily pitchers, which undermined its relevance. Additionally, Physiotherapy sought to include testimony from Ralph Nelson, a former Diamondbacks executive, to counter claims that Felder was not drafted due to injury. Felder argued this was an attempt to introduce a third expert witness, violating procedural rules. The court excluded Nelson's testimony, noting Phillips did not rely on it for his opinions and that it pertained to a collateral issue regarding the Diamondbacks' decision-making. The court's decision to exclude this testimony was also found to be within its discretion. Physiotherapy argues that the trial court erred by allowing expert testimony from Mead regarding the statistics of comparable major league players, viewing it as duplicative of Goldis' testimony about Felder's baseball career, which they claim violates Arizona Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(4)(D). This rule permits each side to have only one independent expert per issue unless good cause is shown. The trial court admitted Mead's testimony, reasoning it was relevant for quantifying damages. Physiotherapy specifically objects to Mead comparing Felder's statistics to those of two minor league players who reached the majors, arguing this invites the jury to incorrectly conclude Felder would have made the major leagues. Felder counters that Goldis and Mead addressed distinct issues—Goldis focused on Felder's major league prospects, while Mead discussed potential earnings based on those prospects. The court has discretion to define issues across professional disciplines and concluded that the testimonies were not duplicative. Additionally, Physiotherapy contends the trial court improperly upheld Felder's Batson challenge concerning a peremptory strike against a Hispanic woman. The Batson ruling prohibits race-based peremptory challenges in civil cases, requiring the objecting party to show a prima facie case of discrimination. The court's factual findings in Batson challenges are upheld unless clearly erroneous, while legal questions are reviewed de novo. The trial court must evaluate all relevant circumstances to determine if a party has made a sufficient showing of purposeful discrimination in jury selection, as established in Batson v. Kentucky. Once the moving party establishes a prima facie case, the opposing party must provide a race-neutral explanation for their peremptory strikes. This explanation need not be logical or persuasive, as long as it does not violate equal protection. The trial court then assesses whether the objecting party has demonstrated purposeful racial discrimination, acknowledging that implausible justifications may indicate pretext for discrimination. In the case at hand, Felder established a prima facie case of discrimination against minority women, noting that Physiotherapy's first three strikes were against Hispanic and African-American women. The trial court found the strike against S.R., a Hispanic woman, violated Batson, while the other strikes did not. Physiotherapy claimed it struck S.R. due to potential undue influence from her injured friend, but the trial court rejected this explanation and reinstated S.R. to the jury, asserting that Physiotherapy's reasoning was inadequate. Physiotherapy argued this ruling infringed on its right to an equal number of peremptory challenges, claiming it should have received an additional challenge after the court deemed one invalid. However, this issue was not raised in a timely manner at the trial level, resulting in waiver on appeal. The judgment was affirmed, with the court finding no error in the trial court's discretion regarding the Batson challenge. Major League Baseball operates with a 25-man and a 40-man roster. The 25-man roster includes active players on the major league team, while the 40-man roster encompasses all 25 players plus 15 additional players the team aims to protect from being drafted by other teams. Players on the 40-man roster are part of the Players' Association and are governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which outlines their treatment by franchises regarding travel, accommodations, and salary. Felder was on the 40-man roster from late 1994 until March 14, 1997. The legal principle established in Lindsey states that reduced earning power is not compensable in breach of contract cases, and its commentary on endorsement income is not applicable for establishing "reasonable certainty" in this personal injury dispute. The court also references prior cases, noting their distinctions from the current issue. Judge Harriett Chavez of the Maricopa County Superior Court was permitted to participate in the appeal's resolution under relevant Arizona constitutional and statutory provisions.