Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Yeager
Citations: 648 So. 2d 602; 1994 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 490; 1994 WL 544071Docket: AV93000461
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; October 7, 1994; Alabama; State Appellate Court
On January 19, 1993, Joel Yeager filed a workmen’s compensation claim in Jefferson County Circuit Court for a foot injury sustained on March 4, 1991, while employed by Lehigh Portland Cement Company. The trial court ruled on December 13, 1993, that Yeager had a permanent partial disability, classifying the injury as affecting the body as a whole, and determined a 15% loss of earning capacity. Lehigh filed a post-judgment motion on January 12, 1994, which was denied, but the court modified two stipulations for accuracy. Lehigh appealed, arguing that Yeager’s benefits should be restricted under the "scheduled injury" provisions of Ala.Code 1975 § 25-5-57(a)(3)a and that Yeager did not adequately demonstrate a loss of earning capacity. The appellate court emphasized the necessity of finding legal evidence to support the trial court's findings and to ascertain if a reasonable view of that evidence corroborates the judgment. Yeager, a 37-year-old plant engineer with 11 years of service, was injured by a forklift, resulting in the loss of his fifth toe, partial loss of the third toe, and bone removal from the fourth toe, alongside tissue death requiring a skin graft. Post-injury, Yeager experienced swelling, pain during prolonged standing, sensitivity to cold, and limitations in recreational activities. He adapted his stance to compensate for the injury, causing knee pain. Dr. Joe Sherrill, Yeager’s orthopedic surgeon, testified that while Yeager could perform basic walking activities with minimal pain, he experienced limitations and discomfort during more strenuous activities. Dr. Sherrill assigned a 7% impairment rating to the foot, 5% to the lower extremity, and 2% to the body as a whole. Dr. David Head, a vocational expert, testified that Yeager's job-related injury led to significant losses across various aspects of his life, affecting his overall bodily function and impairing his ability to stand, walk, or move, which are essential for job performance. In contrast, Lehigh's vocational expert, Ms. Jinnie Lawson, claimed Yeager had no vocational disability. However, the trial court found sufficient evidence supporting that Yeager suffered a permanent partial disability and a 15% loss of earning capacity, suggesting his injury caused greater incapacity than would typically result from a toe injury. Lehigh argued that Yeager's salary increase from $4,200 to $4,500 per month post-injury implied no loss of earning capacity, citing a legal presumption that such earnings indicate no loss. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence of incapacity. Yeager testified that although his job responsibilities remained the same, he required assistance to perform daily tasks, which led him to hire outside contractors. Dr. Head corroborated that Yeager would face challenges in the job market due to his injury. The trial court concluded that Yeager provided independent evidence of incapacity, effectively rebutting the presumption of no loss of earning capacity. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.