Norandal U.S.A., Inc. v. Welton Graben

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/12/2010 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 2080679 Norandal U.S.A., Inc. v. Welton Graben Appeal from Jackson C i r c u i t (CV-99-361.80) Court MOORE, J u d g e . This i s t h e second time these p a r t i e s have b e e n I n N o r a n d a l U.S.A., I n c . v . G r a b e n , before this court. 405, 416 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d a j u d g m e n t of t h e Jackson C i r c u i t 18 So. 3 d C o u r t o r d e r i n g N o r a n d a l U.S.A., Inc. 2080679 ("the employer"), to pay Welton "Sonny" Graben ("the employee") permanent-total-disability benefits pursuant Ala. 1975, the Alabama ("the A c t " ) , A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5¬ Code § 25-5-57(a)(4)d., Workers' Compensation Act 1 e t seq., This on a c c o u n t o f a J u l y 10, court held right-knee that, injury in fall outside "the 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) a . , the t r i a l to of right-knee whether to the other 837 So. 2d 831, schedule," employee's 834 of ( A l a . 2002), A l a . Code 1975, b a c k , and right the efficiency,"'" § c o u r t had e r r e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g the employee's h i p , lower injury. parts i n t e r f e r e [ d ] with their see Ex p a r t e Drummond Co., to part 1997, deciding "'"extend[ed] [ e m p l o y e e ' s ] b o d y and as a to so 25-5- injuries shoulder, which i n j u r i e s had b e e n c o n c l u s i v e l y d e t e r m i n e d t o have b e e n c a u s e d by a n o n c o m p e n s a b l e A p r i l 3, 2004, f a l l . This court further overruled Johnson, 984 So. opinion 2d authored 1136 by Masterbrand (Ala. Civ. Murdock, J., c o n c u r r i n g , and Thompson, P i t t m a n , in the 984 upon So. result), 2d 1146 aff'd, Ex 18 So. parte Cabinets, App. with that the v. (plurality Crawley, Masterbrand Cabinets, pain 2 2005) Inc. P.J., and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r r i n g ( A l a . 2007), which the t r i a l i n determining 3d a t 410-11. the c o u r t had employee Inc., relied experiences 2080679 f r o m t h e r i g h t - k n e e i n j u r y j u s t i f i e d t r e a t i n g t h e i n j u r y as i n j u r y t o t h e b o d y as a w h o l e . a d o p t e d a new 18 "pain exception" So. to the supreme c o u r t ' s l a n g u a g e i n f o o t n o t e and remanded t h e c a s e f o r t h e t r i a l the pain totally, On which from right-knee physically i t determined that trial court court b a s e d on the 11 i n Ex p a r t e Drummond "totally, or the employee. virtually Id. c o u r t e n t e r e d a r e v i s e d judgment i n the employee's compensated o u t s i d e the schedule The c o u r t to c o n s i d e r whether injury disable[s]" remand, t h e t r i a l s h o u l d be First, the 3d a t 416. an the concluded schedule t h a t the right-knee injury f o r two reasons. right-knee injury had a l t e r e d t h e g a i t o f t h e e m p l o y e e , t h e r e b y c a u s i n g symptoms i n h i s h i p and low b a c k . Second, the t r i a l court t h a t the p a i n from the r i g h t - k n e e i n j u r y t o t a l l y , totally, timely On court physically disables the employee. determined or virtually The employer appealed. appeal, erred o u t s i d e the in the employer i s again awarding the arguing employee schedule. 3 t h a t the disability trial benefits 2080679 The A l a b a m a l a w has A l t e r e d - G a i t Theory l o n g r e c o g n i z e d t h a t an i n j u r y t o t h e l e g o f a w o r k e r t h a t a l t e r s t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e w o r k e r w a l k s and t h e r e b y p r o d u c e s p a i n o r o t h e r symptoms i n t h e h i p o r b a c k o f t h e w o r k e r c o n s t i t u t e s an See, e.g., 905 (1972); Ala. 227, 640, 213 injury t o t h e b o d y as H e n d e r s o n v. J o h n s o n , 49 A l a . App. Warrior 2 So. So. e x p l a i n e d the w i t h i n the S t o n e & C o n t r a c t i n g Co. 2d 430 2d 191, (1941). 806 v. 269 De (1968), our supreme as a l o s s , or a l o s s court of use, So. Foor, I n B e l l v. D r i s k i l l , r e a s o n s u c h i n j u r i e s s h o u l d n o t be schedule a whole. 282 2d 241 Ala. succinctly compensated of the l e g : " [ A ] l t h o u g h t h e i n j u r y i t s e l f i s t o o n l y one p a r t o r member o f t h e b o d y , i f t h e e f f e c t o f s u c h i n j u r y e x t e n d s t o o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e b o d y , and p r o d u c e s a g r e a t e r o r more p r o l o n g e d i n c a p a c i t y t h a n t h a t w h i c h n a t u r a l l y r e s u l t s f r o m t h e s p e c i f i c i n j u r y , ... t h e n t h e e m p l o y e e i s n o t l i m i t e d i n h i s r e c o v e r y ... t o t h e amount a l l o w e d u n d e r t h e s c h e d u l e f o r i n j u r y t o t h e one member." 282 A l a . at supra, test our 646, 213 So. supreme c o u r t when i t h e l d t h a t 2d at 811. I n Ex r e s t a t e d t h a t p o r t i o n of " ' i f the effects of member e x t e n d t o o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e b o d y and their efficiency, the parte schedule allowance 4 the Drummond, the loss of interfere f o r the Bell the with l o s t member 2080679 is not e x c l u s i v e . ' " Larson, 837 So. 2d a t 834 (quoting 4 L e x K. L a r s o n ' s W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n Law § 87.02 In Boise (2001)). C a s c a d e C o r p . v. J a c k s o n , 997 So. 2d 1026 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( " J a c k s o n I " ) , t h i s c o u r t i n t e r p r e t e d Ex p a r t e Drummond as a l t e r i n g prove that 2007. benefits. On November Jackson's p e t i t i o n court's This 16, i n order court 2007, for a writ other 1038 parts i s s u e d J a c k s o n I on May 4, of c e r t i o r a r i , o f t h e body. court Boise reversed this awarding Jackson, court, this trial i n June court injury 997 So. 2d on May 2, 2008, permanent-total-disability C a s c a d e C o r p . v. J a c k s o n , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 008) case granted o f permanent p h y s i c a l Ex p a r t e On remand, t h e judgment Jackson. The t o other unscheduled b e n e f i t s t o J a c k s o n b a s e d on t h e a l t e r e d - g a i t t h e o r y by member j u d g m e n t , a n d h e l d t h a t t h e t e s t a d o p t e d i n Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2008). affirmed to receive t h e supreme Drummond does n o t r e q u i r e p r o o f to t o a scheduled t o a permanent p h y s i c a l i n j u r y o f t h e w o r k e r ' s body disability t e s t t o r e q u i r e that a worker t h e e f f e c t s o f an i n j u r y cause o r c o n t r i b u t e parts the B e l l asserted 997 So. 2d 1042 ("Jackson I I " ) . entered 2007, b e t w e e n i t s original the date 5 this judgment court i n this issued i t s 2080679 o p i n i o n i n J a c k s o n I and t h e d a t e t h e supreme c o u r t i s s u e d i t s opinion trial i n Ex p a r t e Jackson. In the June 2007 j u d g m e n t , c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t o n l y t h e 2004 f a l l had e m p l o y e e ' s h i p and noted that back p a i n . some e v i d e n c e in In Graben, supra, the employee's altered gait had employee's hip back pain, and record caused trial court had resolved the court the contributed the other t h o s e symptoms t o t h e A p r i l 2004 f a l l . this We to evidence linked concluded that conflicting evidence on fall. 18 So. 3d at 410-11. This court the the s o u r c e o f t h e h i p and b a c k p r o b l e m s by a t t r i b u t i n g them t o 2004 the indicated that or while caused the further the held t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e e m p l o y e e had n o t f i l e d a c r o s s - a p p e a l , under the trial law-of-the-case court's f i n d i n g t h a t the h i p and b a c k p a i n . held that the a f f i r m e d on g a i t theory. On doctrine, 2004 f a l l 18 So. award of we were had 3d a t 410. unscheduled bound caused the Accordingly, benefits 18 remand, So. 3d a t although knee totally, or the employee's this could the b a s i s of the evidence s u p p o r t i n g an court not be altered- 413. this court had d i r e c t e d the c o u r t to determine s o l e l y whether the p a i n right by virtually 6 i n the totally, trial employee's disables the 2080679 e m p l o y e e , 18 1212, 1214 court's 3d a t 416, duty is to Jones, 774 the 2d quoting i n t u r n W a l k e r v. 2d 982 980, Alabama trial court 431 the 608 Carolina Mills 2d 151, App. Lumber Co., 1983), q u o t i n g So. mandate (quoting Civ. 155 441 parte r e v i s e d i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t t o s u p p o r t an judgment, the trial court reasoned that Ex So. 1983))), of unscheduled b e n e f i t s under the a l t e r e d - g a i t theory. revised by 2000), i n t u r n Ex (Ala. 2d trial determined court.'"'" (Ala. So. '"the appellate m e a n i n g , as reviewing ( A l a . C i v . App. Power Co., with 607, T r a v i s , 875 ("[O]n remand, i n t e n t and by So. T r a v i s v. 2003) comply to i t s true d i r e c t i o n s given parte see ( A l a . C i v . App. 'according the So. the award In i t s i t had not a d d r e s s e d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e e m p l o y e e ' s a l t e r e d g a i t on h i s h i p and was back i n the bound by additional caused a original the opinion evidence permanent employee's body. judgment because, a t t h a t Jackson i n d i c a t i n g that physical The trial J a c k s o n and J a c k s o n I I had June i t 2007, in would have e m p l o y e e ' s a l t e r e d g a i t on injury court I, the to which altered those stated time, that required gait areas had of i f Ex the parte been a v a i l a b l e f o r i t s r e v i e w considered his hip 7 and the effects back. i t in of the B a s e d on the 2080679 legal standard set out court i n those latter opinions, the trial stated that i t "now s p e c i f i c a l l y f i n d s t h a t w h i l e the employee i n j u r e d h i s r i g h t s h o u l d e r and b a c k as a r e s u l t o f t h e f a l l o f A p r i l 3, 2004, he a l s o has s u f f e r e d an a l t e r e d g a i t b e c a u s e o f t h e r i g h t knee i n j u r y and t h a t has c a u s e d o r c o n t r i b u t e d t o c a u s e h i s l o w e r b a c k and h i p p r o b l e m s . " The trial c o u r t a l s o found t h a t the e f f e c t s of the employee's r i g h t - k n e e i n j u r y i n t e r f e r e w i t h the normal f u n c t i o n i n g of e m p l o y e e ' s h i p and low b a c k . The trial court then t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o u n s c h e d u l e d b e n e f i t s pursuant to the The trial concluded disability a l t e r e d - g a i t theory. court's a n a l y s i s i n Graben. the reasoning contradicts this court's In Graben, t h i s c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had a l r e a d y a d d r e s s e d t h e s o u r c e o f t h e e m p l o y e e ' s h i p and l o w - b a c k p r o b l e m s and t h e 2004 f a l l . our discussion discussion judgment despite its 18 So. was could the original on trial a s c r i b e d those problems 3d a t 410-11. that point e s s e n t i a l to not had be judgment. was our affirmed court's 18 failure So. The dicta; the however, that the 413. on that original altered-gait to r e l y 3d a t 8 employee argues t h a t decision on to theory that theory in 2080679 Under decided the "law of the case" b y an a p p e l l a t e remand t o t h e t r i a l reconsider 1214 2001). c o u r t , and t h e t r i a l Ex p a r t e "[W]hatever "'[t]he issues c o u r t become t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e on those i s s u e s . ' " (quoting doctrine, court i s not free to T r a v i s v . T r a v i s , 875 So. 2d a t S.T.S., i s once 806 So. 2d 336, 341 ( A l a . established between t h e same p a r t i e s i n t h e same c a s e c o n t i n u e s t o be t h e l a w o f t h a t c a s e , w h e t h e r o r n o t c o r r e c t on g e n e r a l principles, so l o n g a s t h e f a c t s on w h i c h t h e d e c i s i o n was p r e d i c a t e d c o n t i n u e f a c t s of the case." 922, t o be t h e B l u m b e r g v . Touche R o s s & Co., 514 So. 2d 924 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . The l a w - o f - t h e - c a s e d o c t r i n e " w i l l not permit the t r i a l court to reverse i t s e l f . " Quimby v . M e m o r i a l Parks, also I n c . , 835 So. 2d 134, 135 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . prevents a trial court from entering, The d o c t r i n e on remand, a judgment t h a t would " ' r e n d e r m e a n i n g l e s s t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e [appellate court] v. Nationwide 1996). its i n the f i r s t Mut. appeal.'" I n s . Co., 684 A l f a Mut. I n s . Co. So. 2d 1295, 1302 ( A l a . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e f a c t s on w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t b a s e d original judgment d i d n o t change, o n l y i t s assessment o f those f a c t s changed. 9 2080679 A l t h o u g h we l a w may see Ex (Ala. recognize w a r r a n t d e v i a t i o n from the parte Discount 2001), the Foods, change o r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n i s now the o l d law. trial Inc., law-of-the-case 789 So. must 2d be the doctrine, 842, such c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s due See W r i g h t e t a l . , court i n t e r v e n i n g change i n generally J u r i s d i c t i o n 2d § 4478 n.59 the t h a t an 846 n.4 that the t o r e l i a n c e on Federal P r a c t i c e & Procedure: ( ). I n t h i s c a s e , on i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t d i d not apply remand, the a l t e r e d - g a i t t h e o r y i n i t s o r i g i n a l judgment because of the h o l d i n g i n Jackson I ; however, the trial c o u r t was required to set out a l l o f i t s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e s l i t i g a t e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n i t s o r i g i n a l See A l a . Code 1975, the trial court § 25-5-88. indicate that judgment. Nowhere i n t h a t j u d g m e n t d i d i t had declined to award the e m p l o y e e u n s c h e d u l e d b e n e f i t s b a s e d on t h e a l t e r e d - g a i t t h e o r y due to this court's decision i n Jackson I. Rather, c o n c l u d e d i n Graben, the judgment r e v e a l s o n l y t h a t the court did not apply the altered-gait d e t e r m i n e d , as a m a t t e r o f f a c t , 10 we trial because i t t h a t the employee's h i p and low-back problems r e s u l t e d s o l e l y from the theory as 2004 fall. 2080679 M o r e o v e r , t h e c h a n g e s t o t h e l a w made i n Ex p a r t e and Jackson J a c k s o n I I do n o t a f f e c t t h e c o r r e c t n e s s factual finding. Although antalgic gait t h e employee before April 3, had of that already 2004, a great developed deal an of the m e d i c a l and o t h e r e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e employee d i d n o t complain of h i p problems u n t i l his severe until back p a i n after support that and a s s o c i a t e d fall. the f a c t u a l after begin continues t h a t t h e 2004 f a l l the employee's h i p and back p r o b l e m s . Jackson and t h a t symptoms d i d n o t S u b s t a n t i a l evidence determination a n n o u n c e d i n Ex p a r t e t h e 2004 f a l l to caused The c h a n g e s i n t h e l a w and J a c k s o n I I do n o t i n any manner r e n d e r t h e o r i g i n a l f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n i n g , we r e v e r s e t h a t p o r t i o n of the t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t on remand p u r p o r t i n g t o award t h e e m p l o y e e p e r m a n e n t - t o t a l - d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s b a s e d on t h e altered-gait theory. The P a i n As supreme explained court stated members a f f e c t i n g outside above, in Bell the r u l e other the schedule. Exception v. that Driskill, injuries unscheduled parts B a s e d on t h a t 11 test, supra, to our scheduled o f t h e body fall when t h e i n j u r y 2080679 causes p a i n w h o l l y w i t h i n the scheduled r e m a i n s t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy. declared t h a t the schedule member, t h e s c h e d u l e However, t h e B e l l c o u r t f u r t h e r would not apply when " t h e i n j u r y c a u s e s an a b n o r m a l a n d u n u s u a l i n c a p a c i t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e member." 282 A l a . a t 646, 213 So. 2d a t 811. so-called "second prong" of the B e l l Drummond, 837 So. 2d a t 834 n.10, t h i s opinions a f f i r m i n g unscheduled B a s e d on t h a t test, s e e Ex c o u r t i s s u e d numerous compensation awards b a s i s o f l i n g e r i n g and d i s a b l i n g p a i n i s o l a t e d t o a member. See, e . g . , G o l d K i s t , S t e e l Corp. v. K i m b r e l l , Drummond, o u r supreme c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h i s c o u r t had unduly expanded t h e i n t e n d e d t e s t b y , among o t h e r basis member. the scheduled So. 2d 294 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) . I n Ex p a r t e the on t h e I n c . v. C a s e y , 495 So. 2d 1129 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) ; a n d R e p u b l i c 370 parte of pain reach of the B e l l t h i n g s , d e v i a t i n g from t h e schedule contained entirely 837 So. 2d a t 834-35. second prong of the B e l l that a scheduled The Drummond c o u r t abolished test, within on 837 So. 2d a t 834 n.10., o v e r r u l e d o u r c a s e l a w r e l y i n g on i s o l a t e d p a i n as a g r o u n d f o r avoiding the schedule, 837 So. 2d a t 834-35, a n d r e s t a t e d t h e 12 2080679 test for distinguishing injuries, scheduled injuries from unscheduled as s e t o u t above. Although t h e body of the opinion appeared to c l a r i f y that pain scheduled member w o u l d no l o n g e r schedule, i n footnote i n Ex p a r t e contained take Drummond wholly an i n j u r y within a outside the 11 t h e Drummond c o u r t s t a t e d : " T h i s c a s e does n o t p r e s e n t a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e p a i n , a l t h o u g h i s o l a t e d t o t h e s c h e d u l e d member, c a u s e s a d i s a b i l i t y t o t h e body a s a w h o l e . We r e c o g n i z e t h a t p a i n c a n be t o t a l l y , o r v i r t u a l l y totally, d e b i l i t a t i n g , but t h i s case does n o t p r e s e n t s u c h a s i t u a t i o n ; t h e r e f o r e , we d e c l i n e t o address that s i t u a t i o n here." 837 So. 2d a t 836 n.11. Footnote 11 e x p r e s s l y recognizes t h a t , i n some " s i t u a t i o n , " p a i n may c a u s e a d i s a b i l i t y t o t h e body a s a w h o l e member. although The l a n g u a g e such a " s i t u a t i o n " emanating solely i n the footnote occurs when p a i n from a scheduled further implies isolated to a that scheduled member i s " t o t a l l y , o r v i r t u a l l y t o t a l l y , d e b i l i t a t i n g " t o t h e worker. Hence, i n Graben, language as t h e t e s t supra, f o r determining 13 this court adopted that when p a i n i s o l a t e d to a 2080679 scheduled member transforms unscheduled i n j u r y . that 18 So. 3d a t 4 1 6 . impairment into an 1 T h i s c o u r t p h r a s e d t h e t e s t as r e q u i r i n g p r o o f o f t o t a l , or virtually total, physical disability because Ex p a r t e Drummond h o l d s t h a t an i n j u r y t o a s c h e d u l e d member may n o t be treated as u n s c h e d u l e d based disability Advantage Aug. arising held therefrom. S a l e s o f Alabama, 1, 2008] that a So. 3d trial on e v i d e n c e o f t h e v o c a t i o n a l 837 So. 2d a t 834 n.8. I n c . v. Clemons, [Ms. 2070113, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , t h i s court must first In determine court whether an i m p a i r m e n t meets t h e Ex p a r t e Drummond t e s t f o r t r e a t m e n t as an unscheduled injury vocational disability. disability, before Moreover, a covered worker considering evidence t o prove a t o t a l of vocational d o e s n o t have t o p r o v e entire So p h r a s e d , t h e t e s t d i f f e r s m a t e r i a l l y f r o m t h e t e s t a d v o c a t e d i n M a s t e r b r a n d C a b i n e t s , I n c . v. J o h n s o n , Thus, t h o s e c a s e s a p p l y i n g a n d d i s t i n g u i s h i n g J o h n s o n a r e no l o n g e r applicable or i n s t r u c t i v e . "The c a s e s d e c i d e d a f t e r J o h n s o n , b u t b e f o r e G r a b e n , .... do n o t p r o v i d e us w i t h p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e r e g a r d i n g t h e d e c i s i o n t o award b e n e f i t s o u t s i d e t h e s c h e d u l e b a s e d on d e b i l i t a t i n g p a i n " u n d e r t h e G r a b e n t e s t . Wehadkee Y a r n M i l l s v. H a r r i s , [Ms. 2080281, S e p t . 4, 2009] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . Hence, we do n o t c o n s i d e r t h e employer's argument i n t h i s case t h a t , because t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t s a t i s f y t h e n o w - d i s c a r d e d J o h n s o n t e s t , i t i s n e c e s s a r i l y i n s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e Graben t e s t . 1 14 2080679 physical disability. See B r u n s o n M i l l i n g Co. v . G r i m e s , 267 Ala. 395, 103 So. 2d 315 ( 1 9 5 8 ) ; Mead P a p e r Co. v. B r i z e n d i n e , 575 So. 2d 571 (Ala. Drummond court could C i v . App. circumvented be obviously d i d not intend on t h e b a s i s sustained a t o t a l , or v i r t u a l l y See Ex p a r t e Baggett, of circumvent i n Ex p a r t e a total the schedule t h e employee has total, vocational disability. (Ala. 2008) (pointing out that specially) vocational Drummond). Ex p a r t e has that the using disability i n order to t h e schedule would " e f f e c t i v e l y unwind" t h e h o l d i n g r e f e r r i n g i n footnote pain that Accordingly, 1 So. 3d 1 0 2 1 , 1021-22 (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g evidence 1990). Rather, t h e Drummond c o u r t h a d t o be 11 t o p h y s i c a l disability. Drummond f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t s t h i s exception should previously be c o n s t r u e d recognized, court that the strictly. t h e Drummond court As t h i s court intended "a r e i n i n g i n ... o f t h e manner o f c o m p u t i n g b e n e f i t s where t h e only impairment claimed F o r t James O p e r a t i n g 2004). i s t o a scheduled member." Ex p a r t e Co., 905 So. 2d 836, 844 ( A l a . C i v . App. Ex p a r t e Drummond c r e a t e d a "more s t r i n g e n t t e s t " f o r circumventing t h e l e g i s l a t e d remedy. A l a b a m a Workmen's Comp. S e l f - I n s u r e r s Guar. A s s ' n , I n c . v. W i l s o n , 15 993 So. 2d 451, 453 2080679 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . exception Accordingly, created t o t h e s c h e d u l e must be a p p l i e d n a r r o w l y . parte Addison F a b r i c a t o r s , Inc., The pain exception the rule parte any j u d i c i a l l y should of e x c l u s i v i t y Drummond state See Ex 989 So. 2d 498 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . n o t be a p p l i e d so t h a t i t s w a l l o w s and r e t u r n s i n which the law t o i t s pre-Ex the schedule almost never c o n t r o l l e d t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n due f o r an i m p a i r m e n t t o a l i s t e d member. (Supp. See 1 T. Moore, 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 § 14:16 2009). schedule intended Inc., Just injects recognizing uncertainty a pain into an t o be c e r t a i n , s e e Ex p a r t e 989 So. 2d a t 502-03 exception area to the purposefully Addison Fabricators, (recognizing that the l e g i s l a t u r e i n s t i t u t e d the schedule t o minimize controversy and t o a s s u r e s p e e d y payment o f b e n e f i t s ) ; t h e t e s t s h o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d i n s u c h a manner as t o a d d t o t h a t u n c e r t a i n t y a n d t o l e a d t o t h e type of l i t i g a t i o n the l e g i s l a t u r e a v o i d when i t c r e a t e d t h e s c h e d u l e . Ex parte schedule, Drummond the test worker experiences specifically See i d . and t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i s not s a t i s f i e d intended In keeping intent with behind the by evidence "abnormal," constant, to that the and severe p a i n even when n o t u s i n g t h e a f f e c t e d member, s e e J o h n s o n , 984 So. 2d a t 16 2080679 1144-45; rather, i t requires p a i n the worker experiences competent p r o o f completely, that or almost whatever completely, p h y s i c a l l y d e b i l i t a t e s the worker. In determining exceedingly high l e g a l evidence and whether standard, the a trial court satisfies this must c o n s i d e r a l l b e a r i n g on t h e e x i s t e n c e , d u r a t i o n , i n t e n s i t y , disabling effect of pain i n c l u d i n g i t s own o b s e r v a t i o n s . 640 evidence So. 2d 953 i n the scheduled member, See g e n e r a l l y Nance v. Nance, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . That evidence would i n c l u d e t h e w o r k e r ' s own s u b j e c t i v e c o m p l a i n t s , e v e n i f t h o s e complaints evidence. are unsupported by or contradict Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , required Justice I n c . , 984 So. 2d a t 1 1 5 1 , a n d i n o b j e c t i v e evidence t o prove 11 i n Ex p a r t e t h a t type that of pain disabling pain contemplated by Drummond, a m a j o r i t y o f t h e supreme c o u r t d i d not adopt t h a t p o s i t i o n . employer's i n Ex 997 So. 2d a t 1042, t h a t w o r k e r s s h o u l d be to provide i n order footnote the Although advocated i n h i s w r i t i n g s concurring s p e c i a l l y parte Masterbrand Cabinets, exists medical See g e n e r a l l y U n e x c e l l e d M f g . C o r p . v . R a g l a n d , 52 A l a . App. 57, 289 So. 2d 626 ( C i v . 1 9 7 4 ) . Parker the contention that 17 Hence, t h i s c o u r t the law should rejects require a 2080679 worker's subjective complaints of pain t o be supported by o b j e c t i v e evidence. See H o l t v. S u l l i v a n , 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th (requiring C i r . 1991) claimants Security t o support s u b j e c t i v e complaints evidence o f an u n d e r l y i n g objective medical alleged Social pain medical arising from t h a t o b j e c t i v e l y determined medical t h a t i t c a n be r e a s o n a b l y o f p a i n w i t h "(1) condition evidence that confirms disability a n d e i t h e r (2) the s e v e r i t y of the condition or (3) t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n i s o f such s e v e r i t y expected to give r i s e t o the a l l e g e d pain"). In this the record, when v i e w e d i n a l i g h t to the findings of the t r i a l favorable case, court, Southern E n e r g y Homes, contains s u b s t a n t i a l evidence experienced he i n j u r e d h i s knee the next worked that, showing t h a t s e e Ex parte ( A l a . 2003), t h e employee had v i r t u a l l y u n r e m i t t i n g p a i n i n h i s r i g h t knee s i n c e p r e v e n t t h e employee for 873 So. 2d 1116, 1122 most four closed; on J u l y from performing years u n t i l however, a t the time 10, 1 9 9 7 . of t r i a l d i d not s t r e n u o u s manual the plant the pain That p a i n where t h e e m p l o y e e had worsened t o the p o i n t i n May 2007, t h e employee s u f f e r i n g c o n s t a n t t h r o b b i n g , sometimes sharp, r i g h t - k n e e 18 labor was pain 2080679 on a scale reaction o f 7 o u t o f 10, w h i c h t o wet a n d c o l d weather pain would conditions a t t e m p t t o engage i n p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . increase i n and w i t h any Due t o t h a t p a i n , t h e e m p l o y e e h a s b e e n r e s t r i c t e d f r o m l i f t i n g g r e a t e r t h a n 20 pounds o c c a s i o n a l l y and g r e a t e r running, ladders, prolonged periods of time. frequently, and sitting, standing, stooping, or walking for The p a i n a l s o d i s t u r b s h i s s l e e p . 2 employee remains a b l e t o walk, b u t t h e p a i n i n h i s r i g h t knee slows balance. limits and 10 p o u n d s b e n d i n g a t t h e knee, c r a w l i n g , s q u a t t i n g , climbing The than 3 and alters h i s natural To o b t a i n some r e l i e f h i s physical activities, "Neopectin," 4 gait and affects his from h i s p a i n , t h e employee takes the medications Mobic a n d l a y s down two t o t h r e e h o u r s p e r d a y . 5 I n a d d i t i o n t o h i s r i g h t - k n e e p a i n , t h e employee i n f o r m e d Dr. S h e l i n d e r A g g a r w a l on J u l y 17, 2006, t h a t he c o n t i n u e s t o s u f f e r p a i n r a t e d a s 7 o u t o f 10 i n h i s r i g h t s h o u l d e r , l o w e r b a c k , l e f t h i p , a n d l e f t l e g due t o t h e i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d i n his n o n c o m p e n s a b l e 2004 f a l l . At t r i a l , t h e employee t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a i n i n h i s r i g h t l e g was w o r s e t h a n t h e pain i n h i s l e f t leg. 2 The employee has been u s i n g a cane, c r u t c h , o r w a l k i n g s t i c k s i n c e 2005, b u t t h e e m p l o y e e i n f o r m e d M y r t i c e C a r r , t h e employer's v o c a t i o n a l expert, that he r e l i e s on those a s s i s t i v e d e v i c e s t o compensate f o r a l e f t - f o o t - d r o p c o n d i t i o n caused by h i s noncompensable back i n j u r y . 3 M o b i c i s t h e b r a n d name anti-inflammatory medication. 4 f o r meloxicam, Myrtice Carr, 19 a nonsteroidal the employer's 2080679 However, t h e r e c o r d trial court's findings contains that dressing himself, bathing, employee cannot shop t h e employee and p r e p a r i n g f o r groceries. t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d r e s s e s himself, he once d i d , a n d t h a t he h e l p s The e m p l o y e e p r e s e n t e d preparation. supporting needs assistance meals, and t h a t t h e The e m p l o y e e although h i s wife himself more s l o w l y than shop f o r g r o c e r i e s . no e v i d e n c e as t o h i s b a t h i n g The r e c o r d the t r i a l no e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e a l s o does n o t c o n t a i n and meal any e v i d e n c e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e employee spends t h e m a j o r i t y o f t i m e i n b e d o r i n a r e c l i n e r on b a d d a y s when his pain i s at i t s greatest. Although ability pain significantly o f t h e employee t o p h y s i c a l l y virtually found. the right-knee reduces the f u n c t i o n , i t does n o t t o t a l l y p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e him, as t h e t r i a l The p a i n does n o t c o m p l e t e l y , or almost court completely, p r e v e n t t h e employee from u s i n g h i s upper e x t r e m i t i e s , lifting v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was u n a b l e t o i d e n t i f y "Neopectin" i n medical l i t e r a t u r e . The e m p l o y e e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a l s o t a k e s g a b a p e n t i n a n d L y r i c a f o r n e r v e s a n d burning i n h i s feet. Those p r o b l e m s a r e u n r e l a t e d t o t h e right-knee injury. The e m p l o y e e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he l a y s down two t o t h r e e h o u r s p e r d a y t o o b t a i n some r e l i e f f o r p a i n i n b o t h h i s b a c k and h i s r i g h t knee. 5 20 2080679 light objects, driving, walking, into his home, s i t t i n g , traveling. his The 6 c l i m b i n g the standing, t h a t he h i s sons' farming e a t i n g l u n c h w i t h an o l d f r i e n d , and grandchildren. Despite his activities, in the the s t r i c t t e s t we employee's right unscheduled d i s a b i l i t y knee benefits. 7 meeting t a k i n g care of h i s right-knee pain, the We not and three employee activities. adopted i n Graben, the does or r e g u l a r l y spends retains s i g n i f i c a n t a b i l i t y to perform p h y s i c a l B a s e d on leading occasionally fishing, employee t e s t i f i e d days o b s e r v i n g stairs qualify him therefore hold that pain for the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n t r e a t i n g the employee's impairment to h i s right l e g as Accordingly, remand t h e an unscheduled we reverse the injury t o h i s body as judgment of the trial a whole. court case f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h and this opinion. I n q u e s t i o n i n g M y r t i c e C a r r , the employer's v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t , t h e e m p l o y e e ' s a t t o r n e y i n d i c a t e d t h a t C a r r had e r r e d i n d o c u m e n t i n g t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had r e c e n t l y t a k e n a Las V e g a s v a c a t i o n , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had n e v e r b e e n t o Las V e g a s ; h o w e v e r , C a r r m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e t o l d h e r he had gone t o L a s V e g a s , and no w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t o t h e contrary. 6 A t one t i m e , t h e e m p l o y e e owned and o p e r a t e d a c a t t l e f a r m , b u t he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had g i v e n t h a t f a r m t o h i s s o n s " s e v e r a l y e a r s ago." 7 21 2080679 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . P i t t m a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r s p e c i a l l y , w i t h 22 writings. 2080679 PITTMAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. I concur i n the main o p i n i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y i n c l u d i n g t h a t p o r t i o n of the main o p i n i o n c o n s t r u i n g the " p a i n " e x c e p t i o n recovery under the schedule C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t as b e i n g almost completely, . of members in the Workers' l i m i t e d to pain that "completely, p h y s i c a l l y d e b i l i t a t e s the 3d a t law s e t f o r t h i n A l a b a m a Workmen's Comp. S e l f - I n s u r e r s That t e s t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p r i n c i p l e s of A s s ' n , I n c . v. W i l s o n , which that the prevailing 993 So. I authored. stringent standard amended i n or worker." So. 2006), to 1992, 2d 451, Moreover, Guar. 453-54 ( A l a . C i v . I believe that App. such i s i n keeping w i t h the i n t e n t of the Act when t h e workers' l e g i s l a t u r e expressly compensation laws "ha[d] u n d u l y i n c r e a s e d and cost a as recognized decisions then to employers i n the s t a t e , d r i v e n away j o b s , and p r o d u c e d no c o n c o m i t a n t b e n e f i t . " A c t No. 92-537, 1992 ward o f f a must return Ala. Acts, of remain v i g i l a n t § 1. I n my view, i n order those unwanted e f f e c t s , the j u d i c i a r y to prevent the expansion of liability under the A c t i n the a r e a of scheduled-member i n j u r i e s t o those s i t u a t i o n s i n which a genuinely i m p a i r m e n t has to occurred. 23 debilitating only physical 2080679 MOORE, J u d g e , concurring Pursuant govern Code not to statute, the holdings court decisions and d e c i s i o n s 1975, § 12-3-16. decided specially. Likewise, a particular came b e f o r e question indication. i t , this See U n i t e d of this what 4 3 1 , 1 1 4 S o . 2 d 533 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 269 A l a . 5, 114 S o . 2 d 5 5 1 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . has not decided debilitating pain compensated outside 25-5-57(a)(3)a.; Co., 837 indicated rule. that So. isolated reversed In this totally to a 2d the schedule 831 , i n dicta 836 that, Consequently, or scheduled listed however, i n f o o t n o t e (Ala. court I find myself c o u r t has decide v . Wood, on o t h e r case, 40 A l a . grounds, virtually member totally should h a s no c h o i c e be 1975, § Drummond t h e supreme case, such t h e supreme 11 i n E x p a r t e 2002), this i f the to follow i n A l a . Code i n an a p p r o p r i a t e this See A l a . court i t w o u l d so but to follow dicta. Nevertheless, of that i s bound court i s before i twould S t e e l Corp. App. court supreme court. of law that court States our when t h e s u p r e m e b u t has i n d i c a t e d i n d i c t a question of Drummond. opinion utterly On t h e one rejects confounded by the reasoning hand, isolated 24 t h e body of t h e Drummond p a i n as a b a s i s f o r d e v i a t i n g 2080679 from the schedule, clear the test r e q u i r i n g proof scheduled body. member e x t e n d indicates debilitating injury pain outside totally footnote be other as I t would exclusivity would That member parts or be c o n s i d e r e d parts sufficient o f t h e body. criteria to take seem t h a t i fpain of the schedule t o take pain footnote scheduled 817 be d i s r e g a r d e d . (1924), that See A l a . Code outside pain the does n o t a f f e c t to a scheduled i s not and s u f f e r i n g i t s e l f , see Ex C o . , 19 A l a . A p p . 5 4 7 , causes 1975, 25 Moreover, the schedule a loss member i s c o m p e n s a b l e t o t h e e x t e n t impairment. seems the s e v e r i t y of the Although f o rpain pain injury isolated parte American Blakeslee Manufacturing So. an t h e remedy. i s not to say that t o compensate totally debilitating itself remedy, 11 i n does n o t e x t e n d That an of the footnote virtually even i f t h a t p a i n l i k e w i s e not a f f e c t should intended 98 hand, d o e s n o t e x p l a i n why s e v e r e l y used schedule. pain should totally other c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o t h e body o f t h e o p i n i o n . should the On t h e o t h e r that fairly the e f f e c t s of the injury to t o and i m p a i r the schedule and i m p a i r the that 837 S o . 2 d a t 8 3 4 . Drummond to 837 S o . 2 d a t 834 n . 1 0 , a n d s t a t e s a § of use of a of the resulting 2 5-5-57(a)(3)d. If 2080679 severely the debilitating, i n j u r e d worker pain member. 2080324, O c t . 9, 2 0 0 9 ] i t hardly member, See other Elec. that a finding loss Co. So. 3d enough, parts justify a total General follows i f severe affecting even has s u s t a i n e d affected But may that of use of the v. Baggett, [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . pain isolated should be of t h e body to a as treated scheduled adversely when, i n r e a l i t y , i t does not. I n my o p i n i o n , from of using the schedule totally the schedule. enacting to eliminate intended benefits due a w o r k e r The injuries and resort to thwarted enters to schedule, a totally the calculus. by inconclusive would That by criteria, objective proof, variable being and w i t h o u t That purpose such almost renders a n d demands a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 26 scheduled be e a s i l y c a l c u l a b l e the courts. subjective the the benefits f o r s o l e l y to the schedule administration when regarding an i n j u r y t o a that purpose the l e g i s l a t u r e litigation sustains f o r example, by r e f e r e n c e demonstrate totally who a for deviating the l e g i s l a t i v e l e g i s l a t u r e envisioned t o a knee, payable as a b a s i s undermines By plainly member. severe pain the as i s pain impossible schedule of the claim 2080679 by the court intensity the system to determine of the pain schedule. court its court case awarded employee's complaints this reverse alone, remedy debilitating pain of pain that benefits i n t h e knee, o n l y decision. was was f o r example, nonscheduled a s s o c i a t e d c o s t s and d e l a y s schedule d u r a t i o n , and s u f f i c i e n t l y j u s t i f i e s a departure In this has t w i c e i fthe nature, That entire the based an on t h e have exercise with respected not considered trial to twice would have been a v o i d e d completely from and exception i f the severe to i t s exclusivity. I urge t h e supreme c o u r t to r e v i s i t the "pain to the schedule and t o d e c l a r e it does, to acknowledge t h a t , i n the very however, that i tdoes n o t e x i s t . a s a member o f t h i s limited court, I will circumstances i n t h e main o p i n i o n , t o t a l l y or v i r t u a l l y t o t a l l y pain an isolated award i n a scheduled of nonscheduled member i s s u f f i c i e n t benefits. 27 exception" Until continue s e t out debilitating to warrant

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.