G. A. West & Company v. Ricky McGhee

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/29/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2070961 G.A. West & Company v. Ricky McGhee Appeal from Escambia C i r c u i t (CV-05-170) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g BRYAN, J u d g e . T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f J u l y 17, 2009, i s w i t h d r a w n , a n d the following i s substituted therefor. G.A. West & Company ("G.A. West") a p p e a l s from a judgment 2070961 awarding Ricky McGhee permanent-total-disability benefits p u r s u a n t t o t h e A l a b a m a W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t , § 25-5-1 e t seq., Ala. reverse Code 1975 ("the We affirm i n part and in part. On A u g u s t 16, 2004, McGhee began w o r k i n g f o r G.A. a w e l d e r and an i r o n w o r k e r . injured in a f a l l made Act"). the a t work. following On t h e f o l l o w i n g day, I n i t s judgment, the findings of fact West as McGhee trial concerning was court McGhee's accident: "McGhee was w o r k i n g w i t h o t h e r i r o n w o r k e r s i n t h e p r o c e s s o f d i s m a n t l i n g some e q u i p m e n t as p a r t o f a 'shutdown' o p e r a t i o n t h a t was b e i n g c o n d u c t e d a t t h e Alabama R i v e r P u l p m i l l i n M o n r o e v i l l e , Alabama. At the time of his injury, [ M c G h e e ] was working a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h i r t y (30) f e e t o f f t h e g r o u n d on a catwalk. A t t h a t t i m e , he was e q u i p p e d w i t h and wearing a s a f e t y harness w i t h a double l a n y a r d . At t h e p a r t i c u l a r moment o f h i s i n j u r y , [ M c G h e e ] was u n h o o k i n g h i s l a n y a r d t o move t o a new l o c a t i o n t o b e g i n f u r t h e r work w i t h a c u t t i n g t o r c h . B e c a u s e o f t h e d i s t a n c e t o t h e new a r e a where he was g o i n g t o work, h i s s a f e t y l a n y a r d w o u l d n o t a l l o w him t o be attached at the new l o c a t i o n before he could u n a t t a c h f r o m t h e p r i o r one. T h i s was a p r o c e s s w h i c h was r e f e r r e d t o as b e i n g ' i n t r a n s i t i o n ' by witnesses at t r i a l . I n the course of doing t h i s , Mr. McGhee l o s t h i s f o o t i n g and f e l l , s u s t a i n i n g severe i n j u r i e s . " F o l l o w i n g t h e a c c i d e n t , G.A. West p a i d McGhee t e m p o r a r y - t o t a l - d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s t h r o u g h June 5, 2 2005. On June 27, 2070961 2005, G.A. West sued McGhee, a l l e g i n g that a r i s e n between t h e p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g were tried. judgment McGhee. court On M a r c h awarding held a trial, dispute w h e t h e r G.A. McGhee any a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t s u n d e r t h e A c t . 2008, t h e t r i a l a West court permanent-total-disability issues entered benefits F o l l o w i n g the d e n i a l of i t s postjudgment motion, West a p p e a l e d t o t h i s owed On F e b r u a r y 26, at which s e v e r a l 19, 2008, t h e t r i a l had a to G.A. court. S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h e s t a n d a r d of review i n workers' compensation cases: "(1) I n r e v i e w i n g t h e s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f s e t f o r t h h e r e i n and o t h e r l e g a l i s s u e s , r e v i e w by t h e Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a presumption of correctness. "(2) I n r e v i e w i n g p u r e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h e f i n d i n g o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l n o t be r e v e r s e d if that finding i s supported by substantial evidence." Substantial evidence i s "'evidence o f such weight and q u a l i t y that fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y t o be p r o v e d . ' " 262, Co. i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f the f a c t sought Ex p a r t e Trinity Indus., I n c . , 680 So. 2d 268 ( A l a . 1996) ( q u o t i n g West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e of F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 3 (Ala. 1989)). 2070961 "Our review i s r e s t r i c t e d to a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether the t r i a l court's factual f i n d i n g s are s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(2). T h i s s t a t u t o r i l y mandated scope of r e v i e w does n o t p e r m i t t h i s c o u r t t o r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t u a l f i n d i n g on t h e g r o u n d t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports a contrary f a c t u a l f i n d i n g ; r a t h e r , i t p e r m i t s t h i s c o u r t to r e v e r s e the t r i a l court's judgment only i f i t s factual finding is not s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . See Ex p a r t e M&D Mech. C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . , 725 So. 2d 292 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . A t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on conflicting evidence are c o n c l u s i v e i f they are supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. Edwards v. J e s s e Stutts, Inc., 655 So. 2d 1012 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . " L a n d e r s v. Lowe's Home C t r s . , Civ. App. On erred Section 2007) appeal, in ( o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l G.A. West f i r s t determining 25-5-57(b), calculating section f i r s t an I n c . , 14 McGhee's 3d 144, average average 151 (Ala. trial court submission). argues t h a t the A l a . Code 1975, employee's So. weekly earnings. e s t a b l i s h e s methods f o r weekly earnings. provides: " C o m p e n s a t i o n u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be computed on the b a s i s of the average weekly earnings. A v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s s h a l l be b a s e d on t h e wages, as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 1 ( 6 ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] o f t h e i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e i n t h e employment i n w h i c h he o r she was w o r k i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n j u r y d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f 52 weeks i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e d a t e o f t h e i n j u r y d i v i d e d by 52, b u t i f t h e i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e l o s t more t h a n s e v e n c o n s e c u t i v e c a l e n d a r days d u r i n g the p e r i o d , a l t h o u g h not i n the same week, t h e n t h e e a r n i n g s f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f 4 That 2070961 t h e p e r i o d , a l t h o u g h n o t i n t h e same week, t h e n t h e e a r n i n g s f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e 52 weeks s h a l l be d i v i d e d by t h e number o f weeks r e m a i n i n g a f t e r t h e t i m e so l o s t has been d e d u c t e d . " Section 25-5-57(b) provides a second c a l c u l a t i n g a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s i f an employee a f t e r h a v i n g worked f o r an e m p l o y e r method for i s injured f o r f e w e r t h a n 52 weeks: "Where t h e employment p r i o r t o t h e i n j u r y e x t e n d e d o v e r a p e r i o d o f l e s s t h a n 52 weeks, t h e method o f d i v i d i n g t h e e a r n i n g s d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d by t h e number o f weeks and p a r t s t h e r e o f d u r i n g w h i c h t h e employee e a r n e d wages s h a l l be f o l l o w e d , p r o v i d e d r e s u l t s j u s t and f a i r t o b o t h p a r t i e s w i l l t h e r e b y be o b t a i n e d . " Section calculating 25-5-57(b) also average weekly provides a third method earnings: "Where by r e a s o n o f t h e s h o r t n e s s o f t h e t i m e d u r i n g w h i c h t h e employee has b e e n i n t h e employment o f h i s or her employer or the c a s u a l n a t u r e or terms of the employment i t i s i m p r a c t i c a b l e t o compute the a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s as above d e f i n e d , r e g a r d s h a l l be h a d t o t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y amount w h i c h d u r i n g t h e 52 weeks p r i o r t o t h e i n j u r y was b e i n g e a r n e d by a p e r s o n i n t h e same g r a d e , e m p l o y e d a t t h e same work by t h e same e m p l o y e r , and i f t h e r e i s no p e r s o n so e m p l o y e d , by a p e r s o n i n t h e same g r a d e e m p l o y e d i n t h e same c l a s s o f employment i n t h e same district." T h i s c o u r t has stated: "[T]he employee has the burden of presenting e v i d e n c e f o r c o m p u t a t i o n o f h i s a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage. Cook T r a n s p o r t s , I n c . v. B e a v e r s , 528 So. 2d 875 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . ... [ I f ] t h e f o r m u l a s f o r 5 for 2070961 determining average weekly e a r n i n g s s e t out [ i n § 25-5-57(b)] are impracticable to apply in a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e so as t o a r r i v e a t a j u s t a n d f a i r r e s u l t t o b o t h p a r t i e s , much must be l e f t t o t h e s o u n d judgment and j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l court. U n e x c e l l e d Mfg. C o r p . v. R a g l a n d , 52 A l a . App. 57, 289 So. 2d 626 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; A l u m i n u m W o r k e r s I n t ' l v. Champion, 45 A l a . App. 570, 233 So. 2d 511 (1970)." S t e v i s o n v. Q u a l i f i e d P e r s . , C i v . App. At I n c . , 571 So. 2d 1178, 1180 ( A l a . 1990). trial, McGhee, who had the burden of presenting evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s average weekly earnings, that he was h i r e d by G.A. West t o work on testified a project project") i n v o l v i n g t h e s h u t t i n g down o f a p u l p m i l l . testified that he was not a r e g u l a r McGhee's h o u r l y wage was $16.50. during his second day of employee As n o t e d , McGhee was employment document a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l was p a i d by G.A. Jason G.A. i r o n worker West, t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l . project. with G.A. the beginning Ward stated who McGhee West. injured West. A i n d i c a t e d t h a t McGhee West f o r w o r k i n g 10 h o u r s d a i l y Ward, an injured during o f G.A. ("the worked with f o r 2 days. McGhee f o r Ward t e s t i f i e d t h a t McGhee was o f t h e "pre-down" p h a s e that the pre-down phase of the lasted a p p r o x i m a t e l y a month and t h a t he w o r k e d 10 h o u r s a day f o r 5 6 2070961 days a week d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . down p h a s e was followed a p p r o x i m a t e l y a month. phase, he w o r k e d by a Ward t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p r e "shutdown" phase that lasted Ward s t a t e d t h a t , d u r i n g t h e shutdown 12 h o u r s a day f o r 7 d a y s a week. In i t s judgment, the t r i a l court stated: " [ S e c t i o n ] 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( b ) ... s e t s f o r t h t h e manner in which the average weekly wage i s to be c a l c u l a t e d . However, none o f t h e s c e n a r i o s o u t l i n e d i n t h a t s t a t u t e f i t the f a c t s of t h i s case because o f t h e f a c t t h a t Mr. McGhee was i n j u r e d on t h e s e c o n d day o f t h e work, and a f t e r t h e p r o j e c t h a d o n l y begun. T h e r e f o r e , i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e c a s e o f S l a y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Company, I n c . v. M i l l e r , 702 So. 2d 142 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t the most equitable means of arriving at the appropriate average weekly wage i s t o use a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e wages p a i d t o Mr. McGhee f o r t h e two d a y s w h i c h he w o r k e d and t h e t e s t i m o n y f r o m Mr. Ward d o c u m e n t i n g t h e wages he w o u l d have e a r n e d b u t for the i n j u r y . Under t h a t a n a l y s i s , t h e c o u r t h e r e b y f i n d s t h a t Mr. McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage on t h e d a t e o f h i s i n j u r y was $1,328.25 " Because McGhee h a d w o r k e d fewer t h a n 52 weeks f o r G.A. West b e f o r e h i s i n j u r y , t h e f i r s t method p r e s c r i b e d by § 25-557(b) i s clearly contend that inapplicable. using the Both McGhee and second method found i n § w o u l d be i n e q u i t a b l e b e c a u s e McGhee w o r k e d for G.A. West. not a p p l y i n g G.A. G.A. 25-5-57(b) f o r o n l y two West a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l days c o u r t e r r e d by t h e t h i r d method f o u n d i n § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( b ) . 7 West McGhee 2070961 a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e he was i n j u r e d soon a f t e r b e g i n n i n g work on a s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t , i t w o u l d be i n e q u i t a b l e , i n c a l c u l a t i n g McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s , t o r e l y on t h e e a r n i n g s a during welder/iron immediately Our worker before accumulated McGhee's supreme c o u r t t h i r d method f o u n d i n § has the 52-week of period injury. discussed the a p p l i c a t i o n of the 25-5-57(b): " I t must be n o t e d t h a t so much o f t h e p r o v i s i o n as d e a l s w i t h c a s e s f a l l i n g u n d e r [ t h e t h i r d method] does n o t make i t a h a r d and f a s t r u l e on t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a w a r d t h e same wages o r e a r n i n g s as t h o s e e a r n e d by o t h e r s t h e r e r e f e r r e d t o . I t simply r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e c o u r t must have ' r e g a r d ' t o s u c h a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s o f o t h e r s i n m a k i n g an a w a r d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , b u t does n o t mean t h a t t h e amount f i x e d must be identical to the weekly e a r n i n g s of the o t h e r s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i t must be r e g a r d e d as an e v i d e n t i a l , t h o u g h n o t c o n c l u s i v e , f a c t o r , i n t h e a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f t h e a w a r d i n hand, t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , o f c o u r s e , any p h y s i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s s u c h as t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n o r c o n s t a n c y i n the r e s p e c t i v e employments." G a r r i s o n v. Woodward I r o n Co., 210 A l a . 45, 46, 97 So. 64, 64 (1923). I n a r g u i n g t h a t t h e t h i r d m e t h o d s h o u l d be a p p l i e d , West f o c u s e s on a document p u r p o r t i n g t o show t h e e a r n i n g s an unnamed i r o n w o r k e r who 52-week G.A. period preceding h a d w o r k e d f o r G.A. McGhee's 8 West d u r i n g accident. The of the only 2070961 i n d i c a t i o n on t h e document t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e i s an i r o n w o r k e r is the handwritten document. hour. notation " I r o n Worker" at the top of the L i k e McGhee, t h e unnamed e m p l o y e e e a r n e d $16.50 p e r The document indicates that the employee earned $37,759.67, o r a w e e k l y a v e r a g e o f $726.15, d u r i n g t h e 52-week p e r i o d before McGhee's a c c i d e n t . When c o u n s e l f o r G.A. West s o u g h t t o a d m i t t h e document a t t r i a l , c o u n s e l f o r McGhee o b j e c t e d , s t a t i n g : " I d o n ' t t h i n k there's been any proper e m p l o y e e [ t o McGhee]. d o n ' t know what t h e foundation laid I d o n ' t know who j o b was " t h a t he's The trial court counsel. document, t h e t r i a l When court the trial court trial objection admitted stated: "I'm g o i n g t o a d m i t [ t h e document] on t h e g r o u n d s o f what you have j u s t now r a i s e d [ , i . e . , t o show t h e work a c t i v i t y a t t h e m i l l , ] b u t I ' l l make i t r e a l c l e a r , I'm a d m i t t i n g i t , b u t I ' l l be [ t h e ] g a u g e r o f t h e w e i g h t t o g i v e i t . ... I'm n o t g o i n g t o g i v e i t v e r y much w e i g h t b e c a u s e ... you j u s t g r a b b e d one e m p l o y e e o u t o f t h e p o t and i t may be i n d i c a t i v e o f t h a t t o some e x t e n t , i t may have some b e a r i n g on t h i s , so i t w o u l d be s o m e t h i n g t h a t I w o u l d l o o k a t [ . ] [ B ] u t I ' l l have t o d e t e r m i n e as I s t u d y i t and t h i n k t h r o u g h and compare i t t o t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e as t o how much w e i g h t I'm g o i n g t o g i v e i t . " 9 We initially However, t h e c o u r t l a t e r a d m i t t e d t h e document o v e r t h e c o n t i n u e d McGhee's similar t h i s e m p l o y e e was. s u s t a i n e d t h e o b j e c t i o n t o t h e document. of a the 2070961 The t h i r d m e t h o d p r e s c r i b e d by § 25-5-57(b) trial court employee to "regard" similarly the situated average weekly t o McGhee. r e q u i r e s the earnings of The trial an court, i n c o m p u t i n g McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s , i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t would consider employee the the document purportedly similarly trial accurately court, the earnings s i t u a t e d t o McGhee. c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h a t employee's reflect of very l i m i t e d weight. work may not would West, e v i d e n t l y a s s i g n e d t h e document Under t h e t h i r d method f o u n d i n § 25-5- although a t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e average weekly e a r n i n g s of a s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d employee, evidence i s not c o n c l u s i v e . at 64. As n o t e d , a t r i a l p r e s c r i b e d by § 25-5-57(b) j u s t and f a i r result. Id. in that G a r r i s o n , 210 A l a . a t 46, 97 c o u r t may So. d e p a r t f r o m t h e methods i f t h o s e methods f a i l t o p r o d u c e a S t e v i s o n , 571 So. 2d a t 1180. s i t u a t i o n s , much must be l e f t court an However, t h e work t h a t McGhee p e r f o r m e d and have p e r f o r m e d f o r G.A. 57(b), showing In such to the d i s c r e t i o n of the i n d e t e r m i n i n g an e m p l o y e e ' s average weekly trial earnings. Given the f a c t s of t h i s case, the t r i a l court d i d not e r r deviating from the methods found d e t e r m i n i n g McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y 10 in § earnings. 25-5-57(b) in 2070961 Although the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r i n d e v i a t i n g from t h e methods p r e s c r i b e d by § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( b ) , we c a n n o t a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c a l c u l a t i o n o f McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s . The amount average determined weekly amount by earnings c l o s e r t o McGhee's the $1,328.25 court t o be appears McGhee's t o be maximum p o s s i b l e w e e k l y than h i s a c t u a l average weekly McGhee t e s t i f i e d trial earnings earnings. t h a t he was h i r e d by G.A. West t o work on t h e p r o j e c t a n d t h a t he was n o t a r e g u l a r e m p l o y e e o f West. an G.A. McGhee f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d : "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r G.A. West:] ... [ B ] e f o r e you went t o work w i t h G.A. West, i t was your p r a c t i c e t o work s h u t d o w n s f o r c o m p a n i e s , r i g h t ? "A. "Q. there? Y e s , s i r . And we You'd work a few weeks h e r e and few weeks "A. Yes, sir. "Q. And you h a d p e r i o d s "A. Yes, sir. "Q. P r i o r t o g o i n g t o work f o r G.A. West where you were o u t o f work f o r e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s o f time? "A. The Yes, trial sir." court calculated 11 McGhee's average weekly 2070961 e a r n i n g s t o be $1,328.25. T h a t amount i n d i c a t e s t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage t h a t McGhee w o u l d have e a r n e d d u r i n g t h e p r o j e c t , w h i c h l a s t e d two months, h a d he n o t been i n j u r e d . that amount does not appear to reflect the However, average weekly e a r n i n g s t h a t McGhee w o u l d have e a r n e d o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f a y e a r w o r k i n g as a w e l d e r a n d an i r o n w o r k e r . t h a t he was unemployed w o r k i n g f o r G.A. an iron worker determination $1,328.25. week due with the as a trial T h a t amount r e p r e s e n t s an a v e r a g e 67-hour work the injury. calculation a t McGhee's The c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y See M u r r a y , 490 So. 2d 1238, 1241 court's i s inconsistent s h o u l d d e t e r m i n e t h e amount t h a t to McGhee's s p o r a d i c a l l y employed 40 r e g u l a r h o u r s and 27 o v e r t i m e h o u r s earnings hired t h a t McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s h o u r l y wage o f $16.50. lost t o work on t h e p r o j e c t . s u g g e s t i n g t h a t he was and court's are He a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he was West s p e c i f i c a l l y testimony welder f o r "extended p e r i o d s of time" b e f o r e West and t h a t he w o u l d "work a few weeks h e r e and few weeks t h e r e . " by G.A. McGhee a g r e e d of t h e employee International Paper Co. ( A l a . 1986) . A l t h o u g h t h e McGhee's average weekly has v. trial earnings a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t s t h e e a r n i n g s t h a t McGhee l o s t d u r i n g t h e 12 2070961 d u r a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t , t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e trial court's calculation accurately reflects the earnings t h a t McGhee c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o l o s e o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f an entire year. Accordingly, judgment d e t e r m i n i n g G.A. West determining also we must r e v e r s e McGhee's argues average weekly that the t r i a l that part of the earnings. court erred t h a t McGhee i s p e r m a n e n t l y a n d t o t a l l y in disabled. "'Permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y ' i s d e f i n e d i n § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) d . , A l a . Code 1975, t o i n c l u d e 'any p h y s i c a l i n j u r y o r mental impairment r e s u l t i n g from an a c c i d e n t , w h i c h i n j u r y o r i m p a i r m e n t p e r m a n e n t l y and t o t a l l y i n c a p a c i t a t e s t h e e m p l o y e e f r o m w o r k i n g at and b e i n g r e t r a i n e d f o r g a i n f u l employment.' Total disability does not mean absolute h e l p l e s s n e s s ; r a t h e r , i t means t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e i s not a b l e t o p e r f o r m h i s o r h e r t r a d e and i s u n a b l e t o o b t a i n o t h e r r e a s o n a b l y g a i n f u l employment." Dolgencorp, I n c . v. Hudson, App. 2 0 0 5 ) . 924 So. 2d 727, 734 (Ala. Civ. " ' [ G ] a i n f u l employment means employment s i m i l a r i n remuneration to that earned p r i o r to the i n j u r y . Implicit i n t h i s i s t h a t t h e g a i n f u l employment s o u g h t t o be restored must be " s u i t a b l e . " By " s u i t a b l e " we mean employment w h i c h i s compatible with the employee's p r e - i n j u r y education, and a p t i t u d e . ' " Trans Mart, So. 2d 469, 471 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) V a l l e y Corp., 477 So. 2d 408, 412 13 occupation, age, I n c . v. B r e w e r , ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 1985)). 630 Beaver 2070961 McGhee was 54 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l . testified school t h a t he c o m p l e t e d a n d t h a t he l a t e r that he s e r v e d four years attended t h e 1 0 t h o r 1 1 t h grade o b t a i n e d a GED. McGhee i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Navy after trade o b t a i n i n g h i s GED. school, where McGhee h a d w o r k e d a s a w e l d e r he of high testified f o r approximately McGhee trained McGhee subsequently t o be a n d an i r o n w o r k e r a welder. f o r o v e r 20 years before h i s accident. As a result of h i s f a l l a t work, McGhee sustained a f r a c t u r e d r i g h t o r b i t a l s o c k e t , a f r a c t u r e d r i g h t n a s a l bone, a f r a c t u r e d r i g h t m a x i l l a r y s i n u s , a c l o s e d - h e a d i n j u r y , and a fractured right wrist. The t r i a l c o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f McGhee's i n j u r i e s : "14. F o l l o w i n g h i s i n i t i a l i n j u r y , Mr. McGhee r e c e i v e d m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t f r o m numerous m e d i c a l providers, including Dr. Thomas Barbour (orthopaedist), Dr. Stephen Slobodian (physical m e d i c i n e and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ) , Dr. John Hutcheson (neuropsychologist) and Dr. R. Scott Benson (psychiatrist). "15. Dr. Barbour performed two different s u r g e r i e s on Mr. McGhee At the end o f h i s t r e a t m e n t , Dr. B a r b o u r e x p r e s s e d t h e o p i n i o n t h a t Mr. McGhee h a d s u s t a i n e d a s e v e n (7%) p e r c e n t impairment t o t h e r i g h t upper e x t r e m i t y [ . Dr. B a r b o u r a s s i g n e d McGhee] r e s t r i c t i o n s o f no h e a v y g r i p p i n g , no r e p e t i t i v e g r i p p i n g a n d no r e p e t i t i v e l i f t i n g o v e r f i f t e e n (15) p o u n d s w i t h t h e r i g h t arm. 14 2070961 "16. D r . S t e p h e n S l o b o d i a n began t r e a t i n g Mr. McGhee on J a n u a r y 28, 2005. He o r d e r e d an MRI on F e b r u a r y 10, 2 0 0 5 [ , ] w h i c h o b j e c t i v e l y d e m o n s t r a t e d c l e a r e v i d e n c e o f an i n j u r y t o t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e brain. "17. ... D r . S l o b o d i a n p l a c e d Mr. McGhee a t maximum m e d i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t on S e p t e m b e r 22, 2 0 0 5 [ . Dr. S l o b o d i a n ] a s s i g n e d a t o t a l n i n e (9%) p e r c e n t i m p a i r m e n t t o t h e body as a w h o l e , w h i c h c o n s i s t e d o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e f i v e (5%) p e r c e n t a s s i g n e d t o him as a r e s u l t o f t h e c l o s e d head i n j u r y and t h e s e v e n (7%) a s s i g n e d by D r . B a r b o u r p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e r i g h t arm i n j u r y . "18. I n a d d i t i o n , D r . S l o b o d i a n t e s t i f i e d t h a t Mr. McGhee w i l l have l i f e t i m e d i f f i c u l t i e s with c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g as a r e s u l t o f h i s c l o s e d head i n j u r y , a n d t h a t he w i l l n o t be a b l e t o t h i n k a s well beforehand, will n o t be a b l e to follow d i r e c t i o n s as w e l l and w i l l have t r o u b l e with calculations. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Dr. S l o b o d i a n noted that Mr. McGhee was suffering from severe depression, f o r w h i c h he r e f e r r e d h i m t o D r . J o h n Hutcheson. " "20. D r . H u t c h e s o n e v a l u a t e d Mr. McGhee a t t h e s p e c i f i c r e q u e s t o f Dr. S l o b o d i a n because o f h i s e x p e r t i s e i n t r e a t i n g p a t i e n t s w i t h c l o s e d head injuries. [ D r . H u t c h e s o n ] s t a t e d t h a t Mr. McGhee s u f f e r e d from a severe d e p r e s s i o n and t h a t , as a r e s u l t o f t h a t d e p r e s s i o n , he d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t Mr. McGhee was c a p a b l e o f r e t u r n i n g t o g a i n f u l employment. "21. D r . H u t c h e s o n f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e c o g n i z e d p a t t e r n i s t h a t Mr. McGhee's c o n d i t i o n w i l l w o r s e n i n s t e a d o f i m p r o v i n g a s he g e t s o l d e r . 15 2070961 "23. ... McGhee o f f e r e d v o c a t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y f r o m an e x p e r t r e t a i n e d b y h i m , Mr. J o s e p h M i l l e r . Mr. Miller t e s t i f i e d that as a r e s u l t o f Mr. McGhee's i n j u r i e s , t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s a s s i g n e d t o h i m by t h e v a r i o u s t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n s , Mr. McGhee's p a s t work e x p e r i e n c e , age, e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l and v o c a t i o n a l a p t i t u d e s , ... i t i s h i s o p i n i o n t h a t Mr. McGhee i s one h u n d r e d (100%) percent totally d i s a b l e d from t h e v o c a t i o n a l s t a n d p o i n t . Mr. M i l l e r has h a d e x t e n s i v e e x p e r i e n c e w o r k i n g w i t h p a t i e n t s w i t h c l o s e d head i n j u r i e s , o f which t h e c o u r t takes note and f i n d s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t t o t h i s case. P e r t i n e n t t o t h a t , t h e m a t t e r s t e s t i f i e d t o by Dr. Slobodian regarding Mr. McGhee's i n a b i l i t y t o concentrate, problems w i t h p r o c e s s i n g information, f o r g e t f u l n e s s , and temper o u t b u r s t s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y changes from t h e c l o s e d head i n j u r y a l l c o n s t i t u t e s i g n i f i c a n t o b s t a c l e s t o w a r d any o t h e r a t t e m p t s t o r e t u r n Mr. McGhee t o g a i n f u l employment. When a l l o f t h i s i s c o u p l e d w i t h t h e o p i n i o n s o f D r . John Hutcheson regarding Mr. McGhee's severe d e p r e s s i o n , Mr. M i l l e r was c l e a r l y o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t Mr. McGhee i s one h u n d r e d (100%) p e r c e n t vocationally disabled. The c o u r t finds this testimony i n keeping with the t o t a l i t y of the e v i d e n c e i n t h i s case, and s p e c i f i c a l l y adopts t h a t opinion." In i t s judgment, considered the expert the t r i a l court testimony v o c a t i o n a l - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n counselor. of also Tom stated that i t Christianson, Christianson s e v e r a l j o b s t h a t he b e l i e v e d McGhee c o u l d p e r f o r m . a identified However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f J o s e p h M i l l e r , McGhee's vocational expert, testimony. t o be more c o n v i n c i n g Although the record 16 than contains Christianson's some evidence 2070961 suggesting t h a t McGhee i s l e s s t h a n p e r m a n e n t l y a n d t o t a l l y disabled, "a trial court's findings of fact based on c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e a r e c o n c l u s i v e on t h i s c o u r t i f t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence." 146. Given the evidence before that McGhee Landers, the t r i a l 14 So. 3d a t court, court's finding i s permanently disabled i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. the t r i a l and totally That is, a f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment c o u l d reasonably infer that McGhee i s permanently and totally disabled. Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y I n d u s . , I n c . , s u p r a . Accordingly, the court d i d not e r r i n i t s determination o f McGhee's trial degree of d i s a b i l i t y . G.A. West determining also that r u l e by f a i l i n g when he f e l l . § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975. argues McGhee that the t r i a l d i d not w i l l f u l l y court violate t o have h i s s a f e t y l a n y a r d s e c u r e l y erred i n a safety attached McGhee was i n t h e p r o c e s s o f d i s c o n n e c t i n g h i s l a n y a r d f r o m one l o c a t i o n a n d a t t a c h i n g i t t o a n o t h e r l o c a t i o n when he f e l l . A f i n d i n g of w i l l f u l misconduct precludes i n j u r e d employee from r e c o v e r i n g under t h e A c t . 51, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , c o m p e n s a t i o n s h a l l be a l l o w e d i n pertinent f o r an i n j u r y 17 an S e c t i o n 25-5¬ part, that "no ... c a u s e d b y t h e 2070961 willful her m i s c o n d u c t of the employee willful failure or ... willful [ o r c a u s e d by] h i s o r refusal a p p l i a n c e s p r o v i d e d by t h e e m p l o y e r i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e . 1181, 1181-82 G.A. Ex p a r t e B o w a t e r , argues that rehabilitation or accommodation. provides, Willful use safety misconduct I n c . , 772 So. 2d ( A l a . 2000). West vocational " to in also Section pertinent McGhee refused accept to to undergo reasonable 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( d ) , A l a . Code employee whose d i s a b i l i t y r e s u l t s f r o m an i n j u r y o r i m p a i r m e n t a n d who shall have r e f u s e d t o u n d e r g o accept reasonable ... that or the rehabilitation shall not defense of the the t r i a l , presenting counsel c o u n s e l f o r G.A. deemed of willful refusal of vocational At the b e g i n n i n g West s t a t e d t h a t he w o u l d those defenses during f o r McGhee be defense r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o r r e a s o n a b l e accommodation. of or to disabled." West d i d n o t p l e a d e i t h e r misconduct "[a]ny vocational accommodation p e r m a n e n t l y and t o t a l l y G.A. part, 1975, the t r i a l . o b j e c t e d to the trial At of that those time, issues, stating: "As f a r as r e f u s i n g employment, t h e f i r s t I've h e a r d of t h a t ... i s one m i n u t e ago when [ c o u n s e l f o r G.A. 18 be 2070961 West] j u s t i d e n t i f i e d i t t o you as a p o s s i b l e issue. " "... As f a r as [a p o s s i b l e ] v i o l a t i o n o f t h e s a f e t y r u l e s , [ t h e ] f i r s t I h e a r d o f t h a t was s i x d a y s ago when [ c o u n s e l f o r G.A. West] c a l l e d me about making arrangements t o take the d e p o s i t i o n of Mr. B i l l y B l a c k who was t h e s a f e t y d i r e c t o r on t h e job site. We made a r r a n g e m e n t s and took his deposition. However, I have had no p r i o r k n o w l e d g e o f t h a t as b e i n g a d e f e n s e i n t h i s c a s e and have had no o p p o r t u n i t y t o t r y t o e x p l o r e t h a t p o s s i b i l i t y . T h e r e ' s an i n d i v i d u a l named Mr. Mack M o r r i s who was [McGhee's] s u p e r v i s o r on t h e j o b t h a t I was a b l e t o c o n t a c t l a s t n i g h t , who I was a b l e t o s p e a k w i t h . He s a i d he was a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t on a j o b i n M o b i l e and was n o t a b l e t o be h e r e a t t r i a l t o d a y . As Y o u r Honor p o i n t e d o u t ... t h i s c a s e [has] b e e n p e n d i n g almost three years. T h i s i s s u e has n e v e r b e e n r a i s e d by [G.A. W e s t ] . " The trial court decided misconduct and reasonable to refusal of accommodation try the issues vocational over the of willful rehabilitation objection of or McGhee's counsel. G.A. notice West c o n t e n d s t h a t of the vocational However, G.A. had arisen additional issues of i t s complaint placed willful rehabilitation or misconduct reasonable West's c o m p l a i n t b r o a d l y regarding benefits whether under the 19 G.A. Act and McGhee on refusal of accommodation. alleged that a West and owed sought dispute McGhee a any judgment 2070961 " r e s o l v [ i n g ] a l l c o n t r o v e r s i e s i n t h i s a c t i o n i n [G.A. favor." the McGhee was unaware t h a t G.A. willful-misconduct defense McGhee f i r s t d i s c o v e r e d West w o u l d be until t h a t G.A. the trial, the case had Given those day of trial the trial. At the Accordingly, G.A. Ala. we we conclude medical not also Code 1975, b e c a u s e , G.A. based do West the that the reasonable time of McGhee on either argues trial that, court erred court. two issues. to § 25-5-77(b), i n awarding to accept appellate benefits reasonable present court] this cannot arguments advanced f o r the purpose of r e v e r s i n g judgment of trial p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l for court when t h o s e So. arguments were the never c o u r t f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o r were r a i s e d t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . " v. M o t l e y , 909 be further. West d i d n o t "[An would consider a the the judgment of those pursuant McGhee r e f u s e d However, G.A. trial of address those issues West s a y s , treatment. argument t o the b e e n p e n d i n g f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 32 months. facts, court trial. West w o u l d be a s s e r t i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d i f we were t o r e v e r s e the asserting s h o r t l y before defense of r e f u s a l of v o c a t i o n a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or a c c o m m o d a t i o n on West's] 2d 806, S t a t e Farm Mut. 821 (Ala. 2005). 20 Auto. Ins. Therefore, we Co. do 2070961 n o t a d d r e s s t h a t argument further. We r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n s o f a r as i t d e t e r m i n e d McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s In a l l other r e s p e c t s , we affirm t o be $1,328.25. t h e judgment o f t h e trial court. APPLICATION 2009, WITHDRAWN; FOR REHEARING OPINION GRANTED; OPINION OF JULY 17, SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n Moore, J . , r e c u s e s himself. 21 a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.