Case Results

West Fraser, Inc. v. Caldwell In the Court of Civil Appeals (Workers’ Compensation – Causation)

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:06:00 GMT

Windell Caldwell (“WC”) worked for West Fraser, Inc. (“West”) for over 20 years. WC claimed injury to his back while working on 12/17/09. His wife picked him up and took him to Auburn Urgent Care. A coworker testified that he was working near WC on date of injury and that WC was displeased with his assigned task. The coworker did not hear WC say that he was injured or in pain. WC’s supervisor testified that he had been told by WC that he was going to the doctor because his back was bothering him, but did not state that the injury was work-related.

The Urgent Care records indicated that WC complained of back pain for 1 week and that it was aggravated by movement, no injury. Another supervisor called WC and was told that he had hurt his back and that it had been bothering him for weeks. He went to the ER because the pain medication was not working. These records also indicated that WC denied injury. The employer received a letter from a lawyer representing WC indicating injury to WC’s back on 12/17/09. WC completed a 1st report of injury on 12/23/10. WC’s workers’ comp claim was denied. In 08/10, WC started treatment with Dr. David Scott who testified that employee suffered from herniated disk and aggravated degenerative disk disease. It was Dr. Scott’s opinion that the injury was consistent with the report of a work injury but that it could have been caused in any number of ways, so the doctor could not attribute the employee’s impairment to the 12/17/09 incident. The trial court entered a judgment that the injury was work-related and awarded WC temporary total disability. The employer appealed.

The appeals court stated that substantial evidence must exist to support a trial court’s findings. “Substantial evidence” is “evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.” In this case the Court received irreconcilable conflicting versions of events. The employee denied injury twice before he completed the 1st report of injury. “From statements at the close of the trial, and the language of its judgment, the trial court obviously concluded that the employee should be given the benefit of the doubt because he had been a longstanding and hard worker for the employer.” The employee failed to present substantial evidence to support his claim.

Reversed.

In the Court of Civil Appeals (Workers’ Compensation – Total Disability – Medical Causation)

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:25:00 GMT

Claiborne Johnston (“CJ”) began working for G.A. West & Co. (“West”). CJ was required to fill out a medical questionnaire which included questions about other on-the-job injuries, illnesses which resulted in hospitalization or loss or work, medications being taken and other illnesses or injuries for which CJ was seeking treatment. CJ revealed previous coccyx injury that had been assigned a 5% rating. He did not reveal that he had been prescribed Mobic as a result of the injury. He also failed to disclose hip replacement surgeries.

Shortly after he was hired, CJ was working with his supervisor when he lost his balance and fell. He felt excruciating pain in his lower back, through his hips and radiating to his thighs. He yelled that he was hurt, but initially thought that it was related to hip surgeries. CJ went to see doctor who performed hip surgeries who referred him to Dr. James West. One year after injury, CJ went to company nurse and told her he had sustained an on-the-job injury. MRI revealed a “significant herniation” of the disk. CJ left West’s employment shortly after injury because he could not perform the work. He was out of work for a year and then had various jobs operating equipment.

At trial, CJ testified that back pain was getting worse and he did not think he would be able to continue working. CJ also testified that he was recovering from a recent 4-wheeler accident at time of trial. Trial Court entered judgment finding CJ permanently and totally disabled and awarded benefits for the rest of his life. West appealed.

The trial court erred by awarding CJ benefits for life instead of a period of his permanent total disability. This part of the judgment was reversed. The Appeals court stated that CJ admissions on his medical questionnaire did not create an automatic bar to receipt of workers’ compensation benefits. The Court further stated, “We cannot conclude that Johnston’s failure to note that he made several complaints of back pain over a 20-year period amounted to Johnston’s knowingly and falsely misrepresenting his physical….condition.”

West also contends that CJ failed to give proper notice of injury. In this case CJ’s supervisor witnessed the accident and heard CJ state that he was hurt. This was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment.

West argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a find that CJ was permanently and totally disabled. The Court stated that CJ’s testimony regarding his physical limitations supported the trial court’s finding.

West also argued that the trial court should have allocated a portion of CJ’s disability to previous injuries. The court stated that the law presumes that there is no preexisting injury when the employee is able to fully function in a normal manner prior to injury.

Affirmed in Part; reversed in part.

Tucker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. In the Court of Civil Appeals (Premises Liability)

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:18:00 GMT

A Woman (“Tucker”) shopping in Wal-Mart slipped and fell. A Wal-Mart employee pointed out that Tucker had slipped on some grapes. Tucker had previously passed through the aisle where she fell four times during her visit and had not seen the grapes. Wal-Mart had a safety sweep policy which required employees to look for debris in their areas every 3 hours and for maintenance employees to sweep the floors. A surveillance tape showed one employee standing in line at pharmacy counter instead of conducting safety sweep while other employees appeared to be stocking. Tucker sued Wal-Mart for negligence and wantoness. The wantoness claim was dismissed. Tucker’s jury charges were rejected by the Court. Verdict was returned in favor of Wal-Mart. Tucker appealed.

Tucker challenged the validity of the jury charges. She stated that storekeeper was negligent by failing to establish adequate inspection procedure and/or that storekeeper failed to perform adequate inspection of the premises in accordance with storekeeper’s policies.

The Court stated “that a customer asserting diligent inspection on the part of a storekeeper must still prove that the foreign substance was on the floor for a sufficient period such that an adequate inspection would have discovered it.” S.H. Kress & Co. v. Thompson, 267 Ala. 566, 103 So. 2nd 171 (1957). The Court further stated that the jury charges “accurately encapsulated the holding in Thompson”

Affirmed.

Ex parte Secretary of Veterans Affairs In the Supreme Court (Summary Judgment)

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:16:00 GMT

Man purchased a house in 1998 and mortgaged it to secure payment of a $60,000 promissory note. In 2009, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“Secretary”) sued the man stating claim of ejectment. The Secretary claimed to have purchased the man’s house at a foreclosure sale and that auctioneer had conveyed the property to him. An affidavit offered by Secretary outlined the man’s default, details of the foreclosure and sale of the property to the Secretary. Uncertified copies of the mortgage, its various assignments and the auctioneer’s deed were attached to the affidavit. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. The man appealed.

The Court held that even though the man did not object to the affidavit and its attachments, his response should have called the trial court’s attention to the inadmissibility of the affidavit and the attached documents. The Secretary petition the Supreme Court for certiorari review.

The Supreme Court stated that a party must move to strike an affidavit that violates Rule 56(e) and that failure to do so will result in a waiver of any objection and will allow the court to consider the affidavit.

Reversed.

Morris v. Morris

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:39:00 GMT

Circuit Court of St. Clair, Alabama, Pell City Division
DR-2011-201-JEH

Summary: My client, wife and mother of two, was married for over 20 years and had primarily been a housewife. The Husband owned a sub-contractor construction company. Upon being retained to represent my client, and as a result of reviewing financial records, and planning and preparing the case for possible trial, I was able to secure periodic alimony in the amount of $20,280.00 for life, full medical insurance for three years, a $200,000.00 irrevocable life insurance policy to cover the replacement value of the periodic alimony, 65% of the proceeds of the marital home, and all attorney’s fees to be paid by the Husband.

Disposition: $20,280.00 alimony for life, 3 years medical insurance, 65% of the sale of the marital home proceeds.