Carolyn Williams v. Valley View Health and Rehabilitation, LLC

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 10/16/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 2080399 Carolyn Williams v. V a l l e y View Health and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , LLC Appeal from Limestone C i r c u i t (CV-07-900045) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Carolyn nurse Williams by V a l l e y was e m p l o y e d View Health as a l i c e n s e d practical and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , LLC. On September 20, 2005, W i l l i a m s a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d an i n j u r y i n the line and scope o f h e r employment as a r e s u l t of her 2080399 exposure Valley t o c h e m i c a l fumes. View, benefits. seeking an a summary j u d g m e n t , not arise On award of 2007, Williams workers' arguing that Williams's out o f and i n t h e scope sued compensation On J u l y 22, 2008, V a l l e y V i e w moved t h e t r i a l for September I n June court illness did o f h e r employment. On 2, 2008, W i l l i a m s r e s p o n d e d t o V a l l e y V i e w ' s m o t i o n . September 8, 2008, judgment i n favor Williams moved the t r i a l of V a l l e y the t r i a l court View. court On entered a October to reconsider summary 6, 2008, i t sentry of summary judgment o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o a l l o w h e r t o amend her On J a n u a r y 5, 2009, complaint. Williams's postjudgment m o t i o n was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . See R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. Civ. P. 1 Williams timely appealed t o t h i s The t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary judgment only of an Information entry of t h e judgment court. i n t h i s case c o n s i s t e d i n the State Judicial System. R u l e 59.1 p r o v i d e s t h a t a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t h a t i s n o t r u l e d on b y t h e c o u r t w i t h i n 90 d a y s i s deemed d e n i e d a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e 90-day p e r i o d . The 9 0 t h d a y f o l l o w i n g W i l l i a m s ' s f i l i n g o f h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 6, 2008, was Sunday, J a n u a r y 4, 2009. Therefore, Williams's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was deemed d e n i e d on Monday J a n u a r y 4, 2009. See F i r s t A l a b a m a S t a t e Bank v. McGowan, 758 So. 2d 1116 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d R i c h b u r g v . C r o m w e l l , 428 So. 2d 621 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . 1 2 2080399 " T h i s c o u r t h a s l o n g r e q u i r e d summary-judgment o r d e r s i n w o r k e r s ' compensation c a s e s t o comply w i t h A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-88, w h i c h r e q u i r e s w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law i n workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n j u d g m e n t s . N e l s o n v. D o l l a r Gen. C o r p . , 900 So. 2d 1248, 1248 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ; S h e f f i e l d v . C h o c t a w T r a n s p . , I n c . , 891 So. 2d 344, 345 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ; C a s t e e l ex r e l . J o h n s o n v. W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . , 828 So. 2d 331, 332 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; C a r r v . A d d e d D i m e n s i o n s No. 72 B r o o k w o o d , I n c . , 772 So. 2d 473, 475 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ; a n d F a r r i s v. S t . V i n c e n t ' s Hosp., 624 So. 2d 183, 185 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . " G r i f f i n v. Prime H e a l t h c a r e C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . not contain C o r p . , 3 So. 3d 892, 893-94 ( A l a . The summary-judgment o r d e r i n t h i s c a s e does any f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s or conclusions r e q u i r e d b y § 25-5-88, A l a . Code 1975. T h e r e f o r e , t h e judgment o f l a w as we a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e e n t r y o f a reverse judgment t h a t c o m p l i e s w i t h § 25-5-88. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 3 Bryan, a n d Moore, J J . ,

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.