 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Widtfeldt v. Eaton Corp.12/23/2003
tional rehabilitation specialist, who conducted the loss of earning capacity analysis. The specialist ultimately opined that if the trial court accepted the restrictions suggested by Widtfeldt's chiropractor, which the court did, then Widtfeldt's loss of earning capacity "would be approximately 50 percent." As set forth, there is clearly competent evidence in the record to support the trial court's conclusion as to Widtfeldt's loss of earning capacity, and this assignment of error is without merit.
4. Vocational Rehabilitation and Future Medical Expenses
Vickers next challenges the review panel's failure to reverse the trial court's awards of vocational rehabilitation and future medical expenses. Vickers' primary argument to this court, as it was to the review panel, is that such benefits were not raised by Widtfeldt's amended petition and, therefore, were not properly the subject of an award. We disagree.
As noted above in the background section, Widtfeldt's amended petition specifically alleged two separate work-related injuries. With respect to each, Widtfeldt alleged that "at issue between the parties" was the " ature and extent of permanent disability" as a result of each injury . Further, Widtfeldt requested a hearing "to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties" in relation to the injuries. The review panel held that the amended petition was "sufficiently broad to include a request for vocational rehabilitation and/or future medical expenses." We agree.
Vickers also asserts on appeal that such benefits were never at issue during the hearing before the trial court. Based on our reading of the record, we disagree. Widtfeldt testified at trial that he was suffering continued problems from both injuries. He presented medical evidence indicating a permanent disability. He also testified that he had returned to school and that he was seeking to be licensed as a HVAC technician. There was evidence presented from the vocational rehabilitation specialist who performed the loss of earning capacity analysis and who provided opinions concerning vocational rehabilitation. Additionally, during the course of the hearing, the trial court specifically noted that the amended petition's prayer "includes medical bills and future medical treatment." We find this assignment of error to be without merit.
5. Reimbursement for Mileage Expenses
Finally, Vickers asserts that the review panel erred in not reversing the trial court's award of reimbursement for mileage expenses. Vickers argues that because Widtfeldt did not testify concerning the summary of mileage that was offered by his attorney and received, without objection, by the trial court, he failed to meet his burden to prove that he was entitled to reimbursement for mileage expenses. We disagree.
The record indicates that Widtfeldt presented an exhibit which contained a summary of the mileage for various trips related to medical and chiropractic care. The exhibit indicates, with respect to each trip, the distance "round trip from [Widtfeldt's] house." This exhibit was received without any objection from Vickers. Vickers now argues that the exhibit "was prepared with the assumption that [Widtfeldt] drove to all of his appointments directly from his home. . . . As [Widtfeldt] offered no such testimony to support this conclusion, it could only be reached through guess or speculation." Brief for appellant at 47. Rather, we conclude that the very terms of the exhibit indicate that all the trips were made from Widtfeldt's home. Vickers did not object to this exhibit, nor did counsel question Widtfeldt in any fashion concerning the exhibit or the mileage indicated in it. Consequentl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|