 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harper v. Falrig Offshore12/20/2000
In the functional capacity examination, Mr. Harper demonstrated an ability to lift 26 pounds, carry 50 pounds, and push and pull 50 pounds. This simply demonstrated his ability to function in spite of pain limitations. He has generalized activity restrictions of no repetitive bending and twisting, and he has reached his maximum medical improvement level.
Considering the nature of these two injuries and the changes in lifestyle, which was forced upon him, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its vast discretion in awarding him $250,000.00 in general damages. This assignment of error is without merit.
Permanent Disability
In this assignment Mr. Harper contends that the trial court erred in failing to make a separate award for his permanent disability in addition to its total award of $250,000.00 in general damages.
While we have upheld separate awards of permanent disability and general damages, well-settled law does not require a trial court to itemize a general damage award. The trial court's failure to itemize permanent disability in the general damage award does not constitute an abuse of discretion or require modification of the award. It is obvious from the trial court's reasons for judgment that, in making the general damage award, it was aware of Mr. Harper's disability arising from the accident. It stated:
The Plaintiff sustained a fractured heel and neck and back injury . After seven months of conservative treatment, the Plaintiff had surgery on his heel. Because of a pin inserted in his heel, he has no lateral movement in his foot. He continues to have pain in his heel, lower back, and neck. He continues to have balance problems and sleep problems.
As a result of his injuries, the Plaintiff can no longer perform some general household tasks. He is no longer able to engage in many of the recreational activities he once enjoyed. He is disabled from his job as an offshore welder.
Furthermore, the trial court made an award for future lost wages, which requires an element of proof that Mr. Harper is disabled from the employment that he was capable of performing before his injury . It is obvious that the trial court considered his disability in making the general damage award, and this total award is entirely appropriate. This assignment of error is without merit.
Mental Anguish
Mr. Harper alleges that the trial court failed to make an award for mental anguish and suffering; however, nowhere in his brief is this contention separately briefed. In accordance with our rules, we will treat this assignment of error as abandoned.
Loss of Enjoyment of Life
Mr. Harper contends that the trial court erred in failing to separately award anything for his alleged loss of enjoyment of life in addition to the award of $250,000.00 in general damages. However, again we note that the trial court included this in its general damages award.
Relying on Knepper v. Robin, Mr. Harper argues that loss of enjoyment of life damages should have been awarded as separate damages. In Knepper, we held that in a jury trial, a trial court erred in refusing to list loss of enjoyment of life as a category of damages on the jury's special verdict form. Because of the absence of that category on the jury form, the jury did not have an opportunity to make an award for that type of damage. However in this bench trial, the trial court chose to include loss of enjoyment of life damages within the general damages award and designated the loss of enjoyment of life award there in the Reasons for Judgment and in the judgment. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its vast disc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|