Samuel Mills, Jr. v. Baldwin Transfer Company, Inc., and Alabama Department of Labor

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/04/2013 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 be 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120395 Samuel M i l l s , J r . v. Baldwin T r a n s f e r Company, Inc., and Alabama Department o f Labor Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-11-804) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g Judge. Samuel M i l l s , Circuit Court Court J r . , appeals ("the t r i a l compensation b e n e f i t s . from a judgment o f t h e M o b i l e court") d e n y i n g h i m unemployment- 2120395 Most of the facts i n this case are undisputed. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t M i l l s , who was 72 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e of the t r i a l , Baldwin worked for five years as a t r u c k T r a n s f e r Company, I n c . ( " B a l d w i n " ) . d e v e l o p e d an e a r i n f e c t i o n . infection was caused or Mills driver for I n 2010, M i l l s does n o t s u g g e s t t h a t t h e aggravated by h i s j o b , but the i n f e c t i o n d i d cause him t o s u f f e r d i z z i n e s s and v e r t i g o . a result, As f o r two p e r i o d s i n 2010, M i l l s was a b s e n t f r o m w o r k at Baldwin pursuant t o the f e d e r a l F a m i l y M e d i c a l Leave A c t ("FMLA"). Before medical undergo a driver leave a f o r Baldwin o f absence, physical can r e t u r n Baldwin examination t o work a f t e r requires that a him o r h e r t o complies with the requirements o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ("DOT"). The physicians at Northside Industrial clinic") a r e c e r t i f i e d t o p e r f o r m DOT p h y s i c a l s , retains the c l i n i c t o determine whether ("the and B a l d w i n i t s drivers are c l e a r e d t o r e t u r n t o work. On J a n u a r y 19, 2 0 1 1 , D r . J a s o n V a l e n t i n e , a p h y s i c i a n a t t h e c l i n i c , e x a m i n e d M i l l s on b e h a l f o f B a l d w i n a n d d e t e r m i n e d that Mills was not p h y s i c a l l y 2 f i t to return t o work as a 2120395 driver. Specifically, driving any at which restrictions other Mills could i m p o s e d by be Dr. reevaluated. w o r k i n g as a t r u c k d r i v e r . F e b r u a r y 10, determined work. restricted Valentine, type of work f o r M i l l s On who Valentine commercial v e h i c l e or from c l i m b i n g time, continue Dr. that Because Dr. 2011, to was Polansky Mills was not DOT Daniel able On February 20, to return to Baldwin be restriction on his a physician at the b u t he w o u l d have t o do so a t h i s own reexamination d e c i d e d t o comply w i t h Dr. any r e e x a m i n e d by c o u l d be $45 to the y e a r l o n g clinic, the the Polansky, Baldwin t o l d M i l l s that, to e n d e d , he pay unable certified, driving not year, do. was a b l e t o r e t u r n t o work b e f o r e would f o r one B a l d w i n d i d n o t have physically would not a c c e p t the r e l e a s e . from Because of M i l l s v i s i t e d Dr. Mills Mills Valentine's 2011, Mills fee, expense. and driving filed Mills instead he restriction. a claim for unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s w i t h the Alabama Department of I n d u s t r i a l of Labor ("the Relations, now department"). known as t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t In 1 completing the paperwork On O c t o b e r 1, 2012, t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f I n d u s t r i a l Relations, which administered the state's unemploymentc o m p e n s a t i o n s y s t e m , merged w i t h t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f 1 3 2120395 required f o r the claim, M i l l s t o w o r k and t h a t he was because of other i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was not able not a v a i l a b l e t o a c c e p t f u l l - t i m e work obligations. Additionally, he did not c o n t a c t the department w i t h i n f o u r days of f i l i n g h i s c l a i m t o provide additional instructed. The information, department b e n e f i t s , determining work for which experience, he he the denied qualified not based eligible department Mills's t h a t , b e c a u s e he was was was as to request had for not able to p e r f o r m on past receive t r a i n i n g or unemployment- c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s p u r s u a n t t o § 2 5 - 4 - 7 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Mills appealed Board of Appeals hearing the ("the board"). The to connected to his the department's department scheduled on t h e i s s u e s w h e t h e r M i l l s was w o r k and w h e t h e r he had cause determination a b l e and a a v a i l a b l e to l e f t B a l d w i n v o l u n t a r i l y w i t h o u t good job. After a hearing conducted by telephone, the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r f o r the board i s s u e d a d e c i s i o n i n w h i c h she job "when he determined that M i l l s failed to return to had work voluntarily quit and get a his physical L a b o r ; t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d d e p a r t m e n t i s now known as t h e A l a b a m a Department of Labor. See § 2 5 - 2 - 1 . 1 , A l a . Code 1975. 4 2120395 required by the employer from the hearing o f f i c e r stated that M i l l s ' s company reason doctor." The for leaving work was " o f a p e r s o n a l n a t u r e and no w o r k r e a s o n was e s t a b l i s h e d . " Therefore, the disqualified hearing from officer receiving concluded, he or she A l a . Code 1975. the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r p o i n t e d out t h a t a claimant i s not e l i g i b l e things, was unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s , pursuant t o § 25-4-78(2), In her d e c i s i o n , Mills to receive benefits i s "physically and if, among o t h e r mentally unable to p e r f o r m w o r k o f a c h a r a c t e r w h i c h she i s q u a l i f i e d t o p e r f o r m by p a s t e x p e r i e n c e o r t r a i n i n g . " that Mills had called The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r the department's "inquiry found line" on F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, and p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he h a d become a b l e t o w o r k as o f F e b r u a r y 14, 2011. the hearing officer eligibility the would decision remain concluded, requirements continued, i n effect Mills met as o f F e b r u a r y the he obtained s u b s e q u e n t l y met t h e s t a t u t o r y q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o r e c e i v e unemployment compensation. 5 department's 14, 2011. his disqualification until Therefore, a However, for benefits j o b and t o be then eligible 2120395 Mills trial 17, appealed court 2012. evidence the hearing fora trial de novo. In addition indicated restriction period officer's A trial to the facts that, at the was h e l d set forth end of imposed by Dr. V a l e n t i n e , r e t u r n t o B a l d w i n t o make h i m s e l f He a l s o s a i d t h a t , since on A p r i l above, t h e the one-year Mills d i d not Mills he was l o o k i n g f o r the yearlong r e s t r i c t i o n had e n d e d , he h a d b e e n s e e k i n g a j o b i n w h i c h he c o u l d truck to the a v a i l a b l e f o r work. t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t the time of the t r i a l , work. decision drive a locally. After the t r i a l , denying M i l l s ' s the t r i a l court entered a judgment c l a i m f o r unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s . In explaining i t s decision, the t r i a l court wrote: "Here, [ M i l l s ] f a i l e d t o r e t u r n t o B a l d w i n and o f f e r h i m s e l f b a c k f o r w o r k a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e one (1) y e a r r e s t r i c t i o n a n d as s u c h , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ M i l l s ] v o l u n t a r i l y q u i t h i s j o b w i t h o u t good cause connected with work and is therefore d i s q u a l i f i e d f r o m r e c e i v i n g unemployment b e n e f i t s p u r s u a n t t o Code o f A l a b a m a § 2 5 - 4 - 7 8 ( 2 ) . " M i l l s appealed t o t h i s On a p p e a l , M i l l s court asserts from t h e t r i a l that court's the t r i a l denying him unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s beginning on F e b r u a r y 20, 2 0 1 1 , when he 6 court judgment. erred i n f o r the period first applied for 2120395 benefits, and e n d i n g on J a n u a r y 19, 2012, when h i s one-year d r i v i n g r e s t r i c t i o n e n d e d and he a d m i t t e d l y f a i l e d t o r e t u r n to Baldwin. "The trial c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n an unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n c a s e a r e p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t , and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on s u c h f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be reversed u n l e s s the f i n d i n g s are c l e a r l y c o n t r a r y to the g r e a t w e i g h t of the e v i d e n c e . Department of I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s v. P i c k e t t , 448 So. 2d 364 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983). The Unemployment Compensation A c t i s ' i n s u r a n c e f o r the unemployed w o r k e r and i s i n t e n d e d t o be a r e m e d i a l measure f o r h i s b e n e f i t . ' D e p a r t m e n t o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s v. J a c o , 337 So. 2d 374, 376 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 6 ) . ' I t s h o u l d be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d i n [ t h e ] c l a i m a n t ' s f a v o r and t h e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f r o m b e n e f i t s s h o u l d be n a r r o w l y c o n s t r u e d . ' Department o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s v. S m i t h , 360 So. 2d 726, 727 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . ) , c e r t . den., 360 So. 2d 728 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . " S t a t e Dep't o f I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s v. B r y a n t , 697 So. 2d 469, (Ala. C i v . App. 1997) . employment v o l u n t a r i l y fact. "Whether 1347 Relations ( A l a . C i v . App. v. Ford, 700 employee w i t h o u t good c a u s e L a g r o n e v. D e p a r t m e n t 1345, an So. 2d leaves h i s i s a q u e s t i o n of of Indus. R e l a t i o n s , 1987)." 470 519 So. 2d D i r e c t o r , Dep't o f I n d u s . 1388, 1390 (Ala. Civ. App. court i n t h i s case 1997). The is statute r e l i e d upon by t h e t r i a l § 25-4-78(2), which p r o v i d e s , 7 i n pertinent part: 2120395 "An i n d i v i d u a l s h a l l be d i s q u a l i f i e d or p a r t i a l unemployment: for total " "(2) V o l u n t a r i l y q u i t t i n g work. I f he has l e f t h i s most r e c e n t bona f i d e work v o l u n t a r i l y w i t h o u t good c a u s e c o n n e c t e d w i t h s u c h work. "a.1. However, he shall not be d i s q u a l i f i e d i f he was f o r c e d t o l e a v e work b e c a u s e he was s i c k o r d i s a b l e d , n o t i f i e d h i s e m p l o y e r o f t h e f a c t as s o o n as i t was reasonably p r a c t i c a b l e so t o do, and returned t o t h a t e m p l o y e r and o f f e r e d h i m s e l f f o r work as s o o n as he was a g a i n able t o work; provided, however, this exception s h a l l not apply i f the employer h a d an e s t a b l i s h e d l e a v e - o f - a b s e n c e policy c o v e r i n g s i c k n e s s o r d i s a b i l i t y and: " ( I ) The i n d i v i d u a l f a i l s t o c o m p l y w i t h same as soon as i t i s r e a s o n a b l y p r a c t i c a b l e so t o do; or " ( i i ) Upon t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f a leave of absence s h a l l f a i l t o r e t u r n t o s a i d e m p l o y e r and o f f e r h i m s e l f f o r work, i f he shall t h e n be a b l e t o work, o r i f he i s n o t t h e n a b l e t o work, he f a i l s t o so n o t i f y h i s e m p l o y e r o f t h a t f a c t and r e q u e s t an e x t e n s i o n o f h i s s a i d l e a v e o f a b s e n c e as s o o n as i t i s r e a s o n a b l y p r a c t i c a b l e so t o do." F o r t h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , we a g r e e w i t h M i l l s the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t he f a i l e d t o r e t u r n t o 8 that Baldwin 2120395 and o f f e r h i m s e l f d e n y i n g him 2011, benefits when Dr. commercial f o r employment c a n n o t s e r v e as t h e b a s i s for Valentine truck the year beginning restricted Mills driver. We note that, on January his restriction period, he is not on appeal, entitled to u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s f r o m J a n u a r y 2012 To review determination, the we must propriety construe of the the meaning forward. court's § "'"The i n t e n t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i s the p o l e s t a r of s t a t u t o r y construction." S i e g e l m a n v. A l a b a m a A s s ' n o f Sch. Bds., 819 So. 2d 568, 579 ( A l a . 2001) (citing R i c h a r d s o n v. PSB A r m o r , I n c . , 682 So. 2d 438, 440 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; J o n e s v. C o n r a d i , 673 So. 2d 389, 394 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; and Ex p a r t e J o r d a n , 592 So. 2d 579, 581 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ) . We a r e m i n d f u l t h a t " t h e L e g i s l a t u r e w i l l n o t be p r e s u m e d t o have done a f u t i l e t h i n g in enacting a statute; there is a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t the L e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d a j u s t and r e a s o n a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n and d i d n o t e n a c t a s t a t u t e t h a t has no p r a c t i c a l m e a n i n g . " W e a t h e r s v. C i t y o f O x f o r d , 8 95 So. 2d 305, 309 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e W a t l e y , 708 So. 2d 890 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , and Ex p a r t e Meeks, 682 So. 2d 423 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . ' 9 end receive trial of a Mills 78(2)a.1.(ii). " G l a s s v. A n n i s t o n C i t y Bd. 1143, 1147 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19, f r o m w o r k i n g as c o n c e d e s t h a t , b e c a u s e he d i d n o t r e t u r n t o B a l d w i n a t t h e of for o f E d u c . , 957 So. 2d 2006). Additionally, 25-4- 2120395 ' " [ a ] l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l n o t be a d o p t e d , when i t w o u l d d e f e a t t h e p u r p o s e s o f a s t a t u t e , i f any o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n c a n be g i v e n t o the words."' L i m e s t o n e C o u n t y Water & Sewer A u t h . v. C i t y o f A t h e n s , 896 So. 2d 5 3 1 , 537 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( q u o t i n g H a r r i n g t o n v. S t a t e , 200 A l a . 480, 482, 76 So. 422, 424 ( 1 9 1 7 ) ) . '[T]he l a w i s a r e a s o n a b l e m a s t e r , a n d i t s h o u l d be so c o n s t r u e d i n the l i g h t o f common s e n s e i n a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . ' S t i t h C o a l Co. v. S a n f o r d , 192 A l a . 601, 606-07, 68 So. 990, 992 ( 1 9 1 5 ) . " T.G. v. H o u s t o n C n t y . 1149-50 Dep't o f Human R e s . , 39 So. 3d 1146, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . The trial court determined that M i l l s from r e c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s b e g i n n i n g was i n January disqualified 2011 b e c a u s e , a y e a r a f t e r he a p p l i e d a n d was d e n i e d t h o s e b e n e f i t s , he f a i l e d to r e t u r n t o work at Baldwin. In other words, the t r i a l court's interpretation of § 25-4-78(2)a.1.(ii) deprives of obtaining benefits during Baldwin's policy, However, M i l l s ' s Mills the period was n o t a b l e Mills t h a t , pursuant to drive to commercially. f a i l u r e t o r e t u r n t o work a t t h e e n d o f t h a t p e r i o d c a n n o t p o s s i b l y be t h e b a s i s f o r t h e d e n i a l o f b e n e f i t s as e a r l y a s F e b r u a r y As mentioned, 20, 2011. the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s intent Unemployment C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t ("the A c t " ) , Ala. Code 1975, i n enacting the § 25-4-1 e t s e q . , was t o p r o v i d e " ' i n s u r a n c e f o r t h e u n e m p l o y e d 10 2120395 worker and benefit.'" i s intended Bryant, t o be a remedial 697 So. 2d a t 470 measure ( q u o t i n g Dep't o f R e l a t i o n s v. J a c o , 337 So. 2d 374, 376 ( A l a . C i v . App. F u r t h e r m o r e , d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f r o m b e n e f i t s must be construed. Id. for his Indus. 1976)). narrowly A claimant c e r t a i n l y i s not r e q u i r e d t o wait u n t i l he o r she once a g a i n has t h e a b i l i t y t o work b e f o r e he o r she c a n a p p l y f o r b e n e f i t s f o r payments a i m e d a t a s s i s t i n g the claimant conclude during t h e p e r i o d he o r she c a n n o t work. t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n a t i s s u e does n o t become o p e r a t i v e u n t i l a l e a v e p e r i o d has e n d e d and t h e c l a i m a n t t h e n return We t o work. During the time work, § 2 5 - 4 - 7 8 ( 2 ) a . 1 . ( i i ) a claimant has no a p p l i c a t i o n . t h e s t a t u t e i n t h e manner t h e t r i a l f a i l s to i s not able To to interpret c o u r t has i n t e r p r e t e d i t would d e p r i v e a c l a i m a n t o f unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s at the time those b e n e f i t s a r e most needed. Such a result d e f e a t s t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e A c t . A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e the trial court erred in denying compensation b e n e f i t s from February Mills that unemployment- 2011 u n t i l t h e e n d o f t h e y e a r d u r i n g w h i c h Dr. V a l e n t i n e r e s t r i c t e d h i m f r o m d r i v i n g on the ground t h a t M i l l s h i m s e l f f o r employment failed to r e t u r n to Baldwin i n January 11 2012. to offer 2120395 Our inquiry does not end there, however. This court "'must a f f i r m 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 f t h a t j u d g m e n t is supported was not by any argued valid before legal the ground, even i f t h a t trial court or P a t t e r s o n v. L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., (Ala. 2004)(quoting (Ala. Ex p a r t e CTB, Inc., this 903 782 So. So. ground Court.'" 2d 769, 780 2d 191 2000)). S e c t i o n 25-4-77 o f t h e A c t e s t a b l i s h e s t h e a claimant must meet to be eligible to might be disqualified c e r t a i n reasons from receiving requirements receive A s s u m i n g a c l a i m a n t meets t h o s e r e q u i r e m e n t s , benefits. he o r she benefits e n u m e r a t e d i n § 25-4-78. 188, still because In determining of that M i l l s had v o l u n t a r i l y l e f t h i s employment w i t h o u t good c a u s e connected t o h i s work, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e s e c o n d s t e p in the process from o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r M i l l s was receiving unemployment-compensation disqualified benefits. t h r e s h o l d q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , i s w h e t h e r M i l l s was r e c e i v e b e n e f i t s i n the first The eligible place. On a p p e a l , t h e d e p a r t m e n t a r g u e s t h a t M i l l s d i d n o t employment d u r i n g therefore, i t the says, to year he he was 12 was restricted not eligible seek from driving; to receive 2120395 unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n . In support of i t s a s s e r t i o n , the d e p a r t m e n t p o i n t s o u t t h a t , t o be e l i g i b l e compensation benefits, a claimant must f o r unemploymentbe physically and m e n t a l l y a b l e a n d a v a i l a b l e t o p e r f o r m work o f a c h a r a c t e r he or she i s q u a l i f i e d t o p e r f o r m b y p a s t e x p e r i e n c e o r t r a i n i n g , and he o r she i s r e q u i r e d t o make obtain such work d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d f o r w h i c h compensation b e n e f i t s Ala. a reasonable a r e sought. effort to unemployment- § 25-4-77(a)(3) and ( 5 ) , Code 1975. M i l l s p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on F e b r u a r y 10, 2011, h i s physician, physically conceded able that, commercial Dr. P o l a n s k y , to return other than determined t o work. being t h a t he was In h i s b r i e f , restricted from Mills being t r u c k d r i v e r , he was n o t m e d i c a l l y r e s t r i c t e d performing any other requirement t h a t he be job. Therefore, Mills met a from the p h y s i c a l l y a n d m e n t a l l y a b l e t o work. § 25-4-77(a)(3). However, a further eligibility requirement i s that the c l a i m a n t make a " r e a s o n a b l e a n d a c t i v e e f f o r t t o s e c u r e work which he training." i s qualified t o perform § 25-4-77(a)(5). by p a s t experience " I t i s not necessary 13 and that a 2120395 claimant former s e e k employment s o l e l y employment. Heatherly (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . " (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . i n t h e same i n d u s t r y as h e r v. Campbell, Canady v. A l l e n , employment. Singleton, this Mills he State and r e a s o n a b l e Dep't 364 So. 2d 3 2 5 , 326-27 case, there 646 So. 2d 147, 149 A c l a i m a n t must p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t shows he o r she made g o o d - f a i t h secure 485 So. 2d 735 efforts to Relations v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1978) . In of Indus. i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g that s o u g h t employment o f a n y k i n d d u r i n g t h e t i m e f o r w h i c h seeks failed unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s . t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g good-faith and reasonable Accordingly, Mills compensation benefits, that M i l l s albeit court's effort was n o t e l i g i b l e secure court's he made a employment. unemploymentdetermination i n t h e judgment. Mills's compensation b e n e f i t s i s t h e r e f o r e claim The affirmed. Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 14 trial f o r unemployment- AFFIRMED. Pittman, thus t o r e c e i v e b e n e f i t s was c o r r e c t , f o r a reason not s t a t e d denying that to receive and t h e t r i a l was n o t e n t i t l e d judgment to Mills without writing.

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.