Hobgood v. Aucoin

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Hobgood v. Aucoin

551 So. 2d 1362, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1546, 1989 WL 106417

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 31, 1989

DocketNo. CA 88-0910

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 551 So. 2d 1362 (Hobgood v. Aucoin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hobgood v. Aucoin, 551 So. 2d 1362, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1546, 1989 WL 106417 (La. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

[1363]*1363ON REHEARING'

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff has requested a rehearing en banc asserting that the holding in. this ease on the issue of loss of earning capacity is in “direct conflict” with our holding on that issue in Henry v. National Union Fire Insurance Company, 542 So.2d 102 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 544 So.2d 405 (La.1989).

In Henry, 542 So.2d at 107 this court held that “[T]he trial court erred as a matter of law by ruling that loss of earning capacity was not a compensable element of damages.” (Emphasis added) Because the record was complete, we proceeded to fix a de novo quantum award. Suhor v. Gusse, 388 So.2d 755 (La.1980). The testimony of a vocational rehabilitation counselor and Mrs. Henry’s doctor established as a fact by a preponderance of the evidence that Mrs. Henry’s cervical injury caused her to lose the capacity to become a head nurse or a supervisor of nursing, and, thus, caused a loss of earning capacity. We exercised our discretion and fixed a de novo quantum award of $100,000 for this loss of earning capacity.

In the instant case the trial court did not err as a matter of law by ruling that loss of earning capacity was not a compensable element of damages. Instead, the trial court found as a fact that Mr. Hobgood failed to show “by a preponderance of the evidence any causal connection between Mr. Hobgood’s disability and loss of income.” We reviewed this factual finding under the standard of review set forth in Arceneaux v. Dominque, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978) and determined that “[T]he trial court was not clearly wrong in finding as a fact that Hobgood failed to prove that he will sustain any diminution of earning capacity.” The instant case is not in conflict with Henry and Mr. Hobgood is not entitled to a rehearing en banc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1363]*1363ON REHEARING'

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff has requested a rehearing en banc asserting that the holding in. this ease on the issue of loss of earning capacity is in “direct conflict” with our holding on that issue in Henry v. National Union Fire Insurance Company, 542 So.2d 102 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 544 So.2d 405 (La.1989).

In Henry, 542 So.2d at 107 this court held that “[T]he trial court erred as a matter of law by ruling that loss of earning capacity was not a compensable element of damages.” (Emphasis added) Because the record was complete, we proceeded to fix a de novo quantum award. Suhor v. Gusse, 388 So.2d 755 (La.1980). The testimony of a vocational rehabilitation counselor and Mrs. Henry’s doctor established as a fact by a preponderance of the evidence that Mrs. Henry’s cervical injury caused her to lose the capacity to become a head nurse or a supervisor of nursing, and, thus, caused a loss of earning capacity. We exercised our discretion and fixed a de novo quantum award of $100,000 for this loss of earning capacity.

In the instant case the trial court did not err as a matter of law by ruling that loss of earning capacity was not a compensable element of damages. Instead, the trial court found as a fact that Mr. Hobgood failed to show “by a preponderance of the evidence any causal connection between Mr. Hobgood’s disability and loss of income.” We reviewed this factual finding under the standard of review set forth in Arceneaux v. Dominque, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978) and determined that “[T]he trial court was not clearly wrong in finding as a fact that Hobgood failed to prove that he will sustain any diminution of earning capacity.” The instant case is not in conflict with Henry and Mr. Hobgood is not entitled to a rehearing en banc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 So. 2d 1362, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1546, 1989 WL 106417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobgood-v-aucoin-lactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack