Wendel v. Travelers Insurance Co.
Wendel v. Travelers Insurance Co., 151 So. 3d 828 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014).
Cited by
- William S. Walker v. Anco Insulations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
- Jane Doe v. Herbert Lewis, Junior La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
- McCloskey v. Higman Barge Lines, Inc. 269 So. 3d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
- Jenella E. Ben and Rickie Hairston v. Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
- Ben v. Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. 241 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- Fie, LLC v. New Jax Condo Ass'n, Inc. 241 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- Waters v. Oliver 223 So. 3d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Rathey v. Priority EMS, Inc. 894 So. 2d 438
- Burgard v. Allstate Ins. Co. 904 So. 2d 867
- McGraw v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 519 So. 2d 847
Opinion text
DYSART, J., concurs in part and dissents in-part. |,While I agree that the loss of consortium awards and the general damages award are appropriate, the record does not substantiate the past lost wages or future loss of earning capacity. It is the plaintiffs burden “of proving the time missed *838 from work as a result of the injury.” Rathey v. Priority EMS, Inc., 04-0199, p. 51 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/12/05), 894 So.2d 438, 471 . “Past lost wages are susceptible of mathematical calculation, and the award is not subject to the much discretion standard.” Id. (Citation omitted.). Likewise, while “[fjuture lost wages awards are ‘inherently speculative and intrinsically insusceptible of being calculated with mathematical certainty,’ Id. (Citation omitted), they “must be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty; purely conjectural or uncertain future loss earnings will not be allowed” Burgard v. Allstate Ins. Co., 04-1394, p. 21 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/05), 904 So.2d 867, 879 (Citations omitted). In this case, plaintiffs claims for past lost wages were not demonstrated by mathematical calculations” supported by competent evidence and his claim for future lost wages is likewise unsupported by the record. Similarly, the record does not substantiate the sizable award for future medical and rehabilitation expenses. Our jurisprudence is well-settled that |g“[a]wards will not be made for future medical expenses which may or may not occur in' the absence of medical testimony that they are indicated and setting out their probable cost” McGraw v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 519 So.2d 847, 850 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/14/88) (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) It is the plaintiffs burden to “show that more probably than not, these [future medical] expenses will be incurred.” Id. The record does not reflect that plaintiff carried this burden of proof.