C & D Logging v. Willie Mobley

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 11/20/2009 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 2080659 C & D Logging v. Willie Mobley Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-06-1991.51) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . This i s t h e second time these this court. p a r t i e s have been This c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d t h e r e l e v a n t h i s t o r y as f o l l o w s : before procedural 2080659 "On June 6, 2006, W i l l i e M o b l e y s u e d C & D Logging seeking t o recover w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s f o r an i n j u r y t h a t he a l l e g e d a r o s e o u t o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment w i t h C & D Logging. C & D Logging answered and d e n i e d liability, c o n t e n d i n g , among o t h e r things, that M o b l e y h a d n o t s u f f e r e d an o n - t h e - j o b i n j u r y . "On M a r c h 2, 2007, M o b l e y f i l e d a m o t i o n i n t h e trial c o u r t a s k i n g t h a t c o u r t t o compel C & D Logging t o provide, pursuant t o § 25-5-77(a), A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a p a n e l o f f o u r p h y s i c i a n s ; M o b l e y a s s e r t e d t h a t he h a d become d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h h i s current authorized treating physician. In his motion t o compel, Mobley s p e c i f i c a l l y asked t h a t t h e four-physician p a n e l be composed o f physicians s p e c i a l i z i n g i n p a i n management. The t r i a l court g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n t o c o m p e l on M a r c h 6, 2007. C & D Logging provided Mobley a panel of four physicians. "On M a r c h 29, 2007, M o b l e y f i l e d a s e c o n d m o t i o n t o c o m p e l i n w h i c h he o b j e c t e d t o two o f t h e p h y s i c i a n s on t h e p a n e l o f f o u r p r o v i d e d b y C & D Logging. ... The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d Mobley's s e c o n d m o t i o n t o c o m p e l on t h e same d a y on w h i c h t h a t m o t i o n was f i l e d . "On A p r i l 1 3 , 2007, C & D L o g g i n g f i l e d a m o t i o n a s k i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s M a r c h 29, 2007, o r d e r granting Mobley's second motion t o c o m p e l . ... II "After conducting the f i n a l hearing, the t r i a l c o u r t , on O c t o b e r 1 9 , 2007, e n t e r e d an o r d e r i n favor of Mobley. I n i t s O c t o b e r 19, 2007, o r d e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , that M o b l e y h a d s u f f e r e d an o n - t h e - j o b i n j u r y a n d t h a t M o b l e y was p e r m a n e n t l y a n d t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d as a result of that injury. In addition, the t r i a l court 2 2080659 a w a r d e d a lump-sum f e e f o r M o b l e y ' s a t t o r n e y a n d o r d e r e d C & D L o g g i n g t o pay $1,360.64 i n c o s t s . "On November 20, 2007, C & D L o g g i n g f i l e d i n this court a p e t i t i o n f o r a writ o f mandamus c h a l l e n g i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s M a r c h 29, 2007, o r d e r g r a n t i n g Mobley's second motion t o compel; t h i s c o u r t d o c k e t e d t h a t p e t i t i o n as c a s e number 2070159. On December 4, 2007, t h i s c o u r t i s s u e d an o r d e r denying C & D Logging's p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus i n c a s e number 2070159. C & D L o g g i n g f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g o f t h a t r u l i n g . "On November 29, 2007, C & D L o g g i n g f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal o r , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, c h a l l e n g i n g c e r t a i n p o r t i o n s o f t h e O c t o b e r 19, 2007, o r d e r ; t h i s c o u r t a s s i g n e d t h a t f i l i n g c a s e number 2070198. This court l a t e r c o n s o l i d a t e d the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i n case number 2070159 w i t h c a s e number 2070198." Ex p a r t e C & D L o g g i n g , 2008) (footnote application that omitted). This court ( A l a . C i v . App. overruled f o r r e h e a r i n g i n c a s e number 2070159, the p e t i t i o n untimely 3 So. 3d 930, 931-32 and t h a t for a writ o f mandamus i n t h a t C & D Logging the concluding case was had f a i l e d t o s e t f o r t h a s t a t e m e n t o f good c a u s e as t o why t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d a c c e p t t h e untimely p e t i t i o n . 34. This court Ex p a r t e C & D L o g g i n g , also determined 3 So. 3d a t 932¬ t h a t the October 19, 2007, o r d e r was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y f i n a l t o s u p p o r t t h e a p p e a l i n c a s e number 2070198 b e c a u s e t h e o r d e r d i d n o t c o n t a i n a c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e b e n e f i t s t o be a w a r d e d t o M o b l e y . 3 I d . a t 934-36. This 2080659 court also denied the a l t e r n a t i v e request f o r review pursuant to a petition because C f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n c a s e number 2070198 & D Logging w o u l d have another, t h r o u g h an a p p e a l upon t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l 936-37. This adequate remedy judgment. court entered i t s c e r t i f i c a t e s Id. at o f judgment i n c a s e number 2070159 and c a s e number 2070198 on S e p t e m b e r 17, 2008. Thereafter, entered a final Logging. on September judgment In that 26, 2008, the on M o b l e y ' s c l a i m s September 26, 2008, trial court against C judgment, t h e & D trial c o u r t a g a i n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t M o b l e y was p e r m a n e n t l y a n d t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d as t h e r e s u l t o f an o n - t h e - j o b i n j u r y , and i t a w a r d e d workers' compensation b e n e f i t s accordingly. On O c t o b e r 16, 2008, C & D L o g g i n g f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t motion seeking to a l t e r , 2008, j u d g m e n t . C & D Logging calculating amend, o r v a c a t e t h e S e p t e m b e r I n i t s O c t o b e r 16, 2008, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , contended that certain the t r i a l benefits awarded S e p t e m b e r 26, 2008, j u d g m e n t . its i t s March 29, court to had e r r e d i n Mobley in i t s C & D Logging also argued i n postjudgment motion that reaching 26, the t r i a l 2007, 4 court determination had e r r e d i n pertaining to 2080659 Mobley's request concerning the c o m p o s i t i o n of p a n e l o f f o u r p h y s i c i a n s r e q u e s t e d by M o b l e y . also asserted a number of other grounds the C & D Logging upon which m a i n t a i n e d the t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n r e a c h i n g t h e 2 6, 2 008, second September judgment. Mobley filed a response to C & D Logging's October 2008, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n w h i c h he g e n e r a l l y o p p o s e d of t h e arguments agreed i t that set forth the September i n that motion. 26, 2008, However, judgment 16, most Mobley should be m o d i f i e d t o the e x t e n t t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had m i s c a l c u l a t e d certain workers' compensation benefits. Thereafter, November 13, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended in on judgment w h i c h i t a d o p t e d t h e b e n e f i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s a d v o c a t e d by C & D Logging i n i t s postjudgment m o t i o n ; i n a l l other r e s p e c t s , the to November 13, 2008, amended judgment the o r i g i n a l , On December entitled "motion reasserted the that September 10, 2008, to a l t e r , t h e same g r o u n d s 26, 2008, C & D was almost identical judgment. Logging filed amend, o r v a c a t e . " and a r g u m e n t s first a motion That motion asserted i n O c t o b e r 16, 2008, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n the arguments concerning the 5 correct calculations of 2080659 w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s were o m i t t e d . Primarily, the motion r e a s s e r t e d C & D Logging's arguments p e r t a i n i n g t o the 2007 d i s p u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e p a n e l o f physicians. The trial court did not enter a four ruling in r e s p o n s e t o C & D L o g g i n g ' s December 10, 2008, m o t i o n , and, April 21, 2009, C & D L o g g i n g a p p e a l e d t o t h i s on court. As an i n i t i a l m a t t e r , t h i s c o u r t must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r i t has jurisdiction issues such as to consider t h i s the timeliness appeal. of an appeal s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may ex mero motu. Jurisdictional are such t a k e n o t i c e o f them Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 W i l s o n v. G l a s h e e n , 801 So. 2d 848, 849 of ( A l a . 1987); ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) . A t i m e l y f i l e d postjudgment motion w i l l t o l l the time f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l u n t i l t h e d a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e s upon t h e motion or until the motion i s denied p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P. App. P. postjudgment In this motion case, C within S e p t e m b e r 26, 2008, j u d g m e n t . (providing that & 30 D by law R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. Logging days o p e r a t i o n of of timely the filed entry of its the See R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. a postjudgment motion to alter, amend, or v a c a t e a j u d g m e n t must be f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f 6 2080659 the judgment). I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the arguments the October 2008, p o s t j u d g m e n t 2008, 16, amended judgment awards o f b e n e f i t s motion, corrected to Mobley. the asserted i n t h e November calculations of T h u s , t h e November 13, 13, the 2008, amended j u d g m e n t c o n s t i t u t e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e trial court ruled postjudgment on motion C by & D granting requested i n that motion. So. 2d 106, altered 109 the Logging's portion of 16, 2008, the relief See B a n c T r u s t Co. v. G r i f f i n , ( A l a . C i v . App. original a October order 2007) in a 963 (an amended o r d e r t h a t manner requested in a postjudgment motion w i t h o u t mentioning the postjudgment motion constituted days from judgment, timely a ruling the or entry until appeal. on t h a t m o t i o n ) . of the December Rule November 29, 4(a)(1), 2008, A l a . R. C & D L o g g i n g had 13, 2008, i n which App. P. to 42 amended file (subject a to c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s , an a p p e a l must be f i l e d w i t h i n 42 d a y s o f the e n t r y of the judgment). 1 The 42d day f o l l o w i n g November 13, 2008, was December 25, 2008, a l e g a l h o l i d a y . The f i r s t d a t e f o l l o w i n g December 25, 2008, t h a t was n o t a S a t u r d a y , a Sunday, o r a l e g a l h o l i d a y was December 29, 2008. See R u l e 2 6 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P. ( I n computing time p e r i o d s under the R u l e s of A p p e l l a t e Procedure, " [ t ] h e l a s t day o f t h e p e r i o d s h a l l be i n c l u d e d , u n l e s s i t i s a S a t u r d a y , Sunday, o r a l e g a l h o l i d a y , i n w h i c h e v e n t t h e 1 7 2080659 However, on motion e n t i t l e d December "motion 10, 2008, to a l t e r , C & D Logging filed a amend, o r v a c a t e . " C & D L o g g i n g a s s e r t s t h a t i t s December 10, 2008, m o t i o n was denied by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on M a r c h 10, 2009. Civ. P. (the f a i l u r e postjudgment that motion motion). jurisdiction C & of a t r i a l within 90 court days D Logging See R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. on constitutes asserts contained i n i t s brief to rule i n the a pending a denial of statement of submitted to this court t h a t i t t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t h e d e n i a l by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w o f i t s December 10, 2008, p u r p o r t e d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on A p r i l 13, 2009, w i t h i n t h e 42 d a y s a l l o w e d by R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P. As we e x p l a i n b e l o w , we a p p e a l i s t i m e l y on t h a t The December 10, cannot agree t h a t C & D Logging's basis. p u r p o r t e d postjudgment motion a s s e r t e d t h e same g r o u n d s a s s e r t e d i n C & D L o g g i n g ' s October 16, 2008, p o s t j u d g m e n t 2008, motion. As a s u b s e q u e n t postjudgment m o t i o n , i t d i d n o t work t o f u r t h e r e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l . motion tolls " [ I ] t l o n g has the time been h e l d for taking an that 'while appeal, a a Rule 59 subsequent p e r i o d e x t e n d s u n t i l t h e end o f t h e n e x t day w h i c h i s n o t a S a t u r d a y , Sunday, o r l e g a l h o l i d a y . " ) ; see a l s o R u l e 6 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 8 2080659 request, by whatever reconsideration label, of i t s r u l i n g does n o t o p e r a t e t o f u r t h e r Durr v. Durr, seeking the trial court's on t h e f o r m e r R u l e 59 m o t i o n , toll the time f o r the appeal.'" 961 So. 2d 139, 140 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( q u o t i n g S u n s h i n e Homes, I n c . v . Newton, 443 So. 2d 921, 923 (Ala. 1 9 8 3 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e M u t u a l S a v . L i f e Ins. Co., 765 So. 2d 649 ( A l a . 1998)). This court explained: " ' [ T ] h e R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e do n o t a u t h o r i z e a movant t o f i l e a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s r u l i n g on h i s own p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . However, i n some cases such s u c c e s s i v e post-judgment motions may be p e r m i t t e d . I f , f o r example, t h e j u d g e h a s r e n d e r e d a new j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e a j u d g m e n t o r p u r s u a n t t o a R u l e 5 0 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t , t h e p a r t y a g g r i e v e d b y t h e new j u d g m e n t may have h a d no r e a s o n t o make such a motion e a r l i e r . ' "Ex p a r t e D o w l i n g , 477 So. 2d 400, 404 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . A t r i a l court lacks j u r i s d i c t i o n to entertain a s u c c e s s i v e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h e same or similar relief as t h e o r i g i n a l postjudgment motion or requesting r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the o r i g i n a l postjudgment motion. Hudson v . Hudson, 963 So. 2d 92, 94 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; O l l i s v. O l l i s , 636 So. 2d 458, 459 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ; a n d G o l d K i s t , I n c . v. G r i f f i n , 659 So. 2d 626, 627 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) ( ' S u c c e s s i v e 9 has 2080659 post-judgment m o t i o n s by t h e same p a r t y , s e e k i n g e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same r e l i e f , a r e n o t a l l o w e d . ' ) . " G r e e n v. G r e e n , (Ala. [Ms. C i v . App. 2009) C & D Logging's impermissible court's 2008, (emphasis 26, 2008, 3d , added). judgment and Accordingly, 2008, m o t i o n the Accordingly, dismissed So. c o n s t i t u t e d an the we November conclude that 13, the d i d not extend the time f o r f i l i n g C & D L o g g i n g d i d n o t a p p e a l w i t h i n 42 d a y s o f t h e of dismissed. 2009] December 10, 2008, m o t i o n amended j u d g m e n t . an a p p e a l . 27, second r e q u e s t f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the t r i a l September December 10, entry 2070789, Feb. the November appeal 13, i s not 2008, timely R u l e 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. i f the notice invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n of appeal P. was of the a p p e l l a t e amended and i t i s due 10 be court."). P i t t m a n , B r y a n , and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . himself. be timely APPEAL DISMISSED. Moore, J . , r e c u s e s to appeal s h a l l ("An not judgment. filed to

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.