## Facts

- Nellie Sallas, an employee with a seventh-grade education and a background in manual labor, suffered two work-related back injuries in September and October 1987 while employed by Southeastern Commercial Printing Corporation.
- She returned to work on light-duty status under medical restrictions, experiencing extreme pain, requiring back injections, and needing frequent rest periods.
- During this accommodated return-to-work period, her wages were temporarily increased.
- Medical testimony indicated she was totally impaired, with significant limits on sitting, standing, and walking.
- The trial court credited medical and lay evidence that Sallas could not perform her prior work and could not obtain reasonably gainful employment.

## Issues

1. Whether Sallas’s higher post-injury wages conclusively negated any loss of earning capacity.
2. Whether a reasonable view of the evidence supported a finding of 100% permanent total disability.
3. Whether the trial court erred in the amount and structure of the weekly permanent total disability benefits awarded.

## Decision

- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment awarding permanent total disability benefits and attorney’s fees.
- The court held that post-injury wages created only a presumption of retained earning capacity, which the trial court could find rebutted where the wages were not a reliable measure of market earning capacity.
- The court concluded that a reasonable view of the evidence supported the finding that Sallas was permanently and totally disabled under the workers’ compensation standard.
- The court upheld the weekly benefit award as properly based on the trial court’s findings.

## Legal Principles

- In Alabama workers’ compensation cases, appellate review is limited to whether any reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court’s findings; the appellate court does not reweigh ore tenus evidence.
- Post-injury earnings are evidence of earning capacity but are not conclusive; they create a rebuttable presumption that may be overcome by evidence showing the wages are an unreliable indicator of true earning capacity.
- Permanent total disability does not require absolute helplessness; it may be shown by an inability to perform one’s trade or to secure reasonably gainful employment considering the worker’s condition, education, and work history.
- A trial court may consider whether post-injury work is heavily accommodated or otherwise reflects sheltered employment when assessing loss of earning capacity.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a permanent total disability award where substantial evidence showed the employee’s severe physical limitations and vocational constraints, and where higher post-injury wages were found unreliable because they resulted from temporary, accommodated light-duty work rather than true competitive earning capacity.


Southeastern Com. Printing Corp. v. Sallas, 575 So. 2d 1151 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991)