Metals USA Plates and Shapes Southeast, Inc. v. Albert Conner (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-06-257.51)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 4/29/2011
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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s ,
A l a b a m a 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, 2010-2011
2090800/2091020
Metals USA P l a t e s and Shapes Southeast, Inc.
v.
A l b e r t Conner
Appeals from Mobile C i r c u i t Court
(CV-06-257.51)
THOMAS, J u d g e .
Metals
employer"),
USA
Plates
appeals
from
Court, i nwhich the t r i a l
was
permanently
a n d Shapes
Southeast,
Inc.
a judgment o f t h e M o b i l e
("the
Circuit
c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t A l b e r t Conner
and t o t a l l y
disabled
as t h e r e s u l t
of a
2090800/2091020
workplace accident.
court's
On
failure
We
t o c o m p l y w i t h § 25-5-88, A l a . Code
S e p t e m b e r 14,
accident while
w i t h the
r e v e r s e and remand, b a s e d on t h e
2005, C o n n e r was
a c t i n g i n the
employer.
At
the
course
injured
and
time of the
trial
1975.
i n a workplace
scope of h i s
accident,
duties
Conner
was
s t a n d i n g on a f l a t b e d t r a i l e r a s s i s t i n g i n t h e l o a d i n g o f some
bundles of angle
operated
iron.
As M o r r i s S u l l i v a n , a n o t h e r e m p l o y e e ,
a c r a n e t o maneuver t h e a n g l e
trailer,
the
between the
angle
angle
iron
shifted,
i r o n and
a l r e a d y been l o a d e d
feet
from
the
shoulder.
testified
that
onto the t r a i l e r .
C o n n e r had
trailer
to
t h a t C o n n e r had
had
then
the
the
The
At t r i a l ,
been crushed,
Sullivan,
Sullivan
crushing
he
fell
ground,
only
remaining
ankle
landing
witness
feet,
had
details
approximately
to
grabbed h o l d of the
a b o u t two
the
Conner c l a i m e d t h a t ,
l o w e r e d Conner from the
fallen
Conner's
another bundle of i r o n , which
o f t h e a c c i d e n t were d i s p u t e d .
a f t e r h i s a n k l e had
i r o n i n t o p l a c e on
on
the
his
five
right
accident,
crane
trailer,
cables,
and
landing i n a
that
sitting
position.
After
then
t h e a c c i d e n t , C o n r a d was
transported
to
the
emergency
2
t r e a t e d by p a r a m e d i c s
room
at Mobile
and
Infirmary
2090800/2091020
Medical
Center.
examined
At
Conner.
bimalleolar
the hospital,
Dr.
fracture
syndesmosis.
1
of
Conner
the
Dr.
J e f f r e y M.
diagnosed
right
Conner
and
ankle
with
injured
an
On S e p t e m b e r 20, 2005, D r . C o n r a d o p e r a t e d
Conner, p e r f o r m i n g
the surgery,
Dr.
Conrad
inserted
a
metal
C o n n e r ' s a n k l e , w h i c h he a f f i x e d w i t h s c r e w s .
2006, D r . C o n r a d p e r f o r m e d a s e c o n d s u r g e r y
to
remove
a
on
an open r e d u c t i o n i n t e r n a l f i x a t i o n o f t h e
b i m a l l e o l a r ankle f r a c t u r e w i t h syndesmodic f i x a t i o n .
of
Conrad
one o f t h e s c r e w s
because
As p a r t
plate
into
On F e b r u a r y 2,
on C o n n e r ' s
i t was
causing
ankle
Conner
pain.
On
January
18, 2006,
Conner
filed
a complaint
i n the
t r i a l c o u r t , a l l e g i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t he "was c a u s e d
to
s u s t a i n severe
while performing
did
and d i s a b l i n g i n j u r i e s
to h i s right
h i s job duties f o r[the employer]."
n o t r e f e r e n c e any o t h e r a l l e g e d i n j u r i e s i n h i s
foot
Conner
complaint.
D r . C o n r a d e x p l a i n e d t h a t a b i m a l l e o l a r f r a c t u r e means
t h a t t h e p a t i e n t has a f r a c t u r e t o t h e l a t e r a l m a l l e o l u s ,
w h i c h i s on t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e a n k l e , a n d t o t h e m e d i a l
m a l l e o l u s , w h i c h i s on t h e i n s i d e o f t h e a n k l e .
Dr. Conrad
f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t the syndesmosis i s the ligament t h a t
l i e s between t h e t i b i a and f i b u l a .
1
3
2090800/2091020
C o n n e r a l s o d i d n o t m e n t i o n any a l l e g e d i n j u r i e s o t h e r t h a n t o
h i s ankle
i n h i s responses t o the employer's i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s .
The e m p l o y e r d e p o s e d Conner on September 6, 2006,
one y e a r a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t .
of Conner
causing
as t o what p a r t s
him p a i n .
The e m p l o y e r ' s c o u n s e l
inquired
o f h i s body were i n j u r e d o r were
The f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n
the employer's counsel
almost
Conner a n d
occurred:
"[The e m p l o y e r ' s c o u n s e l ] .
shoulders?
N o t h i n g wrong w i t h
your
"[Conner].
No -- sometimes
I have p a i n i n my
s h o u l d e r s , b u t I d o n ' t know w h e t h e r i t comes f r o m
that or not, yes.
"[The e m p l o y e r ' s c o u n s e l ] . What a b o u t y o u r a r m s ? You
didn't hurt
your elbow o r your w r i s t o r your
fingers?
"[Conner].
No. I know -- a n d when -- when t h e y
f i n a l l y came, I was o f f t h e t r u c k . I was l a y i n g on
t h e s h o u l d e r down, so maybe t h a t ' s t h a t ' s where I
have i t , my s h o u l d e r p a r t come i n on t h e s h o u l d e r .
"[The e m p l o y e r ' s c o u n s e l ] .
you?
"[Conner].
What s h o u l d e r
i s hurting
The r i g h t o n e . "
L a t e r i n t h e d e p o s i t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g exchange
occurred:
"[The e m p l o y e r ' s c o u n s e l ] .
B u t you've
already
t e s t i f i e d today t h a t the only problems t h a t you're
h a v i n g i s y o u r r i g h t l e g , y o u r r i g h t a n k l e , and y o u r
headaches; correct?
4
2090800/2091020
"[Conner].
"[The
Right.
employer's c o u n s e l ] .
"[Conner's c o u n s e l ] :
his
shoulder?
Okay.
Didn't
he s a y s o m e t h i n g a b o u t
"[The e m p l o y e r ' s c o u n s e l ] :
W e l l , he s a i d he h a d
some s h o u l d e r , b u t he d i d n ' t t h i n k i t was c a u s e d b y
this.
"[The
employer's c o u n s e l ] .
Isn't that
correct?
" [ C o n n e r ] . W e l l , I h a p p e n e d t o be on my
shoulder
when I f e l l o f f t h e t r u c k , s o I d o n ' t know w h e t h e r
t h a t came f r o m i t o r n o t .
"[The e m p l o y e r ' s c o u n s e l ] .
or t h e other?
"[Conner].
for that.
Y o u d o n ' t know one way
When t h e p a i n I n e v e r g o t i t c h e c k e d o u t
"[The
employer's c o u n s e l ] .
t r e a t e d f o r your shoulder?
"[Conner].
On
June
Have
you
ever
been
No."
14,
2007,
Conner
amended
his
complaint,
c o r r e c t i n g t h e name o f t h e e m p l o y e r ; C o n n e r d i d n o t amend h i s
c l a i m s o r a d d any a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s .
moved t h e t r i a l
court
On A p r i l 8, 2008, C o n n e r
t o compel t h e employer t o p r o v i d e
him
with a panel of four p h y s i c i a n s pursuant t o § 25-5-77(a), A l a .
Code 1975.
I n h i s m o t i o n , Conner a l l e g e d t h a t " [ a ] s a r e s u l t
o f t h e i n j u r y a n d s u r g e r y t o h i s f o o t [Conner] was r e q u i r e d t o
5
2090800/2091020
use c r u t c h e s f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w e l v e months w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n
an i n j u r y t o h i s r i g h t s h o u l d e r . "
"Dr.
C o n r a d has
Conner f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t
refused to treat
[ C o n n e r ' s ] s h o u l d e r and as a
r e s u l t t h e r e o f [Conner] i s d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e c a r e p r o v i d e d
by D r .
Conrad."
c o m p e l on
April
The
trial
15,
2008,
court granted
o r d e r i n g the
Conner's motion
employer
to
to
provide
Conner w i t h a p a n e l of f o u r p h y s i c i a n s .
On A p r i l 17, 2008, t h e e m p l o y e r f i l e d a m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g
that
the
trial
court
withdraw
or,
in
the
alternative,
r e c o n s i d e r i t s o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g the employer t o p r o v i d e Conner
w i t h a p a n e l of f o u r p h y s i c i a n s .
The
motion
opportunity
that
i t had
not
had
an
employer argued i n i t s
to
respond
Conner's motion b e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s o r d e r .
employer
also,
among
other
Conner's
a l l e g e d s h o u l d e r i n j u r y was
the r e s u l t of a workplace
accident
o r had
workplace
employer
argued,
s h o u l d e r had
because
the
not been d e t e r m i n e d
denied
The
that
a r i s e n from another
things,
to
injury.
alleged
t o be
injury
employer l a t e r
filed
a supplemental
6
to
a compensable
i t s h o u l d n o t be o r d e r e d t o p r o v i d e t r e a t m e n t
The
Therefore,
the
Conner's
injury,
for that injury.
brief
i n support
of
2090800/2091020
i t s m o t i o n , i n w h i c h i t a r g u e d t h a t C o n n e r was
a panel
of f o u r p h y s i c i a n s .
The
employer
not e n t i t l e d t o
argued:
" [ C o n n e r ] now c l a i m s t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o m e d i c a l
treatment f o r s h o u l d e r problems r e s u l t i n g from u s i n g
c r u t c h e s w h i l e he was
r e c o v e r i n g from h i s ankle
i n j u r y . [ C o n n e r ' s ] c o m p l a i n t does n o t a l l e g e t h a t he
s u f f e r e d a s h o u l d e r i n j u r y i n any p u r p o r t e d work
p l a c e a c c i d e n t and does n o t i n c l u d e an a l l e g a t i o n
t h a t h i s ankle i n j u r y extends to other p a r t s of h i s
b o d y . However, t h e [ e m p l o y e r ] d e n i e s t h a t [Conner]
s u f f e r e d an i n j u r y t o h i s s h o u l d e r i n any work p l a c e
a c c i d e n t , o r t h a t he i n j u r e d h i s s h o u l d e r
using
c r u t c h e s w h i l e r e c o v e r i n g from h i s ankle i n j u r y .
In
f a c t , Dr. Conrad t e s t i f i e d t h a t , o t h e r than r u b b i n g
t h e a r m p i t s , he had n e v e r h e a r d o f a s h o u l d e r i n j u r y
r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e use o f c r u t c h e s , and D r . C o n r a d
i s a shoulder s p e c i a l i s t . "
The
t r i a l c o u r t granted the employer's motion to withdraw
i t s A p r i l 15,
2008, o r d e r , and
Conner's motion t o compel.
court
entered
an
order
employer to p r o v i d e
The
Following
on
July
Conner w i t h
for a hearing
a hearing,
25,
2008,
a panel
of
the
directing
on
trial
the
four physicians.
t r i a l c o u r t a l s o s t a t e d i n i t s order t h a t "the p a r t i e s are
requested
on
i t s e t a date
the
to n o t i f y the Court
issue
employer
compensability
petitioned
challenging
employer's
of
the
so t h a t a h e a r i n g may
trial
petition
this
court
as
for
court's order.
by
order,
7
to
"on
the
a
heard
shoulder."
The
writ
This
the
be
of
mandamus,
court denied
condition
that
the
the
2090800/2091020
[trial]
court's
July
25,
2008,
order
be
construed
not
to
i n c l u d e any a s s e s s m e n t o f o r t r e a t m e n t f o r an a l l e g e d s h o u l d e r
injury."
The t r i a l
court conducted
a trial
on C o n n e r ' s
on November 12, 23, and 24, 2009, a t w h i c h
heard
ore tenus
evidence
that,
iron,
he h a d
shoulder.
after
h i s ankle
fallen
the t r i a l
presented
h a d been
o f f the t r a i l e r
Conner t e s t i f i e d
i n the f a l l .
court
testimony
and
Conner t e s t i f i e d a t
crushed
and h a d
by
the
landed
angle
on h i s
t h a t he h a d i n j u r e d h i s s h o u l d e r
Conner t e s t i f i e d
t h a t he f i r s t
noticed pain i n
s h o u l d e r i n November 2005, a p p r o x i m a t e l y two months a f t e r
the a c c i d e n t .
back
Conner
regarding h i s alleged injuries.
trial
his
evidence.
complaint
pain
orthopedic
A c c o r d i n g t o C o n n e r , he began s u f f e r i n g
i n the middle
surgeon
who
o f 2008.
Dr.
Robert
lower-
Zarzour,
had t r e a t e d Conner, t e s t i f i e d
an
in his
d e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s a h i g h a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n an a l t e r e d
gait
and l o w e r - b a c k
pain.
The
f r o m C o n n e r and p r o v i d e d e v i d e n c e
employer e l i c i t e d
testimony
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Conner had
not i n c l u d e d a shoulder or lower-back
i n j u r y i n h i s complaint
and t h a t he h a d n e v e r amended h i s c o m p l a i n t t o i n c l u d e e i t h e r
injury.
8
2090800/2091020
Both p a r t i e s f i l e d p o s t t r i a l b r i e f s
The
employer
argued
shoulder-injury
barred
by
the
in
claim
statute
i t s posttrial
and
of
his
i n the t r i a l
brief
that
lower-back-injury
limitations
2
because,
claims.
The
Conner's
claim
were
i t argued,
n e i t h e r C o n n e r ' s c o m p l a i n t n o r h i s amended c o m p l a i n t
those
court.
included
employer f u r t h e r argued t h a t
"Mr. C o n n e r a p p a r e n t l y has a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r i e s as
t o t h e c a u s e o f h i s p u r p o r t e d s h o u l d e r and
lower
back
injuries.
U n d e r one
theory,
Mr.
Conner
c o n t e n d s t h e he i n j u r e d h i s s h o u l d e r u s i n g c r u t c h e s ,
and h i s l o w e r b a c k as t h e r e s u l t o f an
altered
gai[t].
The
o t h e r t h e o r y i s t h a t he
actually
s u f f e r e d t h r e e i n j u r i e s i n h i s S e p t e m b e r 14, 2005
a c c i d e n t , an a n k l e i n j u r y , a s h o u l d e r i n j u r y ( a s a
r e s u l t o f a f a l l ) and a l o w e r b a c k i n j u r y ( a s a
r e s u l t o f a f a l l ) , Mr. Conner no d o u b t f i l e d h i s
l a w s u i t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a n k l e i n j u r y w i t h i n two
y e a r s o f h i s S e p t e m b e r 14, 2005 a c c i d e n t .
However,
t o t h e e x t e n t he i s c l a i m i n g s e p a r a t e i n j u r i e s ( t h e
shoulder
and t h e l o w e r b a c k ) a r i s i n g f r o m t h a t
a c c i d e n t , he d i d n o t f i l e a c l a i m f o r t h o s e i n j u r i e s
w i t h i n two y e a r s o f t h e a c c i d e n t . "
2
S e c t i o n 25-5-80, A l a . Code 1975,
provides, i n pertinent
part:
"In
case of a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y not
involving
cumulative
physical
stress,
a l l
claims
for
c o m p e n s a t i o n u n d e r t h i s a r t i c l e s h a l l be f o r e v e r
b a r r e d u n l e s s w i t h i n two y e a r s a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t
t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l have a g r e e d upon t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n
payable
u n d e r t h i s a r t i c l e o r u n l e s s w i t h i n two
y e a r s a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t one o f t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l
have f i l e d a v e r i f i e d c o m p l a i n t
as p r o v i d e d i n
S e c t i o n 25-5-88."
9
2090800/2091020
The
trial
determining
court
entered
a judgment
on A p r i l
22, 2010,
t h a t Conner was t o t a l l y and p e r m a n e n t l y d i s a b l e d .
Among i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t ,
the t r i a l
court
found:
"2. ... On S e p t e m b e r 14, 2005, [Conner] s u f f e r e d
a b i m a l l e o l a r ankle f r a c t u r e t o the r i g h t ankle i n
a work a c c i d e n t as d e f i n e d b y A l a b a m a ' s W o r k e r s '
C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t . The i n j u r y a r o s e o u t o f and was
s u f f e r e d w h i l e w o r k i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f
h i s employment w i t h [ t h e e m p l o y e r ] .
[The e m p l o y e r ]
r e c e i v e d prompt and a c t u a l n o t i c e o f t h e s a i d
accident.
"
"10.
[Conner] f i r s t n o t i c e d p a i n i n h i s r i g h t
shoulder
when he l a i d
down on h i s r i g h t
side
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 months f o l l o w i n g t h e S e p t e m b e r 14,
2 0 0 5 [ , ] work a c c i d e n t . A l t h o u g h D r . C o n r a d does n o t
r e c a l l the event,
[Conner] r e p o r t e d t h e s h o u l d e r
p a i n t o Dr. Conrad at t h a t time.
The p a i n i n
[ C o n n e r ' s ] s h o u l d e r became p r o g r e s s i v e l y w o r s e t h e
l o n g e r he r e m a i n e d on c r u t c h e s .
"11.
[Conner] b e g a n e x p e r i e n c i n g p a i n i n h i s
l o w e r b a c k i n m i d t o l a t e 2008. The l o w e r b a c k p a i n
has become p r o g r e s s i v e l y w o r s e . As s e v e r a l m e d i c a l
e x p e r t s t e s t i f i e d i n t h i s c a s e , an a l t e r e d g a i t c a n
l e a d t o c h r o n i c low back p a i n .
As t h e C o u r t
observed at time of t r i a l ,
[Conner] w a l k s
very
s l o w l y , w i t h a p r o n o u n c e d a n t a l g i c g a i t and r e q u i r e d
t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f a cane t o a m b u l a t e . As D r . R o b e r t
Z a r z o u r , an o r t h o p e d i c s u r g e o n w i t h more t h a n 30
years of experience
testified,
[Conner's] lumber
p r o b l e m s a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e t r a u m a he s u f f e r e d when
h i s a n k l e was c r u s h e d and he f e l l o f f o f t h e t r u c k .
"
10
2090800/2091020
"21. ... [Conner] i n j u r e d h i s r i g h t s h o u l d e r i n
t h e S e p t e m b e r 2005 work a c c i d e n t when he f e l l f r o m
the top of a f l a t b e d t r a i l e r , s t r i k i n g h i s r i g h t
s i d e on t h e g r o u n d .
The s h o u l d e r i n j u r y
was
aggravated
thereafter
by t h e p r o l o n g e d use o f
crutches f o r approximately 1 year f o l l o w i n g t h i s
work a c c i d e n t . "
Among i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w , t h e t r i a l
court
determined:
"27. On S e p t e m b e r 14, 2005, [Conner] i n j u r e d h i s
r i g h t a n k l e a n d r i g h t s h o u l d e r when h i s a n k l e was
c r u s h e d b y a s h i f t i n g l o a d o f a n g l e i r o n , and
[Conner] t h e r e a f t e r f e l l a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 f e e t f r o m
t h e t o p o f a f l a t b e d t r a i l e r l a n d i n g on h i s r i g h t
side.
A t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t , [Conner] was
a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e , c o u r s e and scope o f h i s
employment w i t h
[the employer].
[The e m p l o y e r ]
r e c e i v e d prompt and a c t u a l n o t i c e o f t h e s a i d
accident.
"28. [Conner] h a s p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e
t h a t t h e u s e o f c r u t c h e s f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12 months
f o l l o w i n g t h e work a c c i d e n t a g g r a v a t e d t h e o r i g i n a l
i n j u r y t o h i s s h o u l d e r . ' I f a worker's compensation
c l a i m a n t shows t h a t he r e c e i v e d an i n i t i a l i n j u r y
which
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, t h e n e v e r y n o r m a l c o n s e q u e n c e t h a t f l o w s
from
the i n j u r y
likewise
arises
out of the
employment.' Ex p a r t e P i k e C o u n t y Comm., 740 So. 2d
1080
( A l a . 1999).
This Court
finds that the
aggravation of the i n j u r y to the r i g h t shoulder i s
a n a t u r a l consequence f l o w i n g from t h e i n i t i a l
i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d i n t h e work a c c i d e n t , t h a t [ t h e
employer]
received appropriate notice
of the
s h o u l d e r i n j u r y , and t h a t t h e i n j u r y t o [Conner's]
s h o u l d e r i s a compensable i n j u r y .
"
"30.
... [Conner] h a s p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e t h a t he s u f f e r s c h r o n i c p a i n i n h i s a n k l e
11
2090800/2091020
and l o w e r b a c k .
The c h r o n i c b a c k p a i n i s a n a t u r a l
consequence f l o w i n g from the
initial
injury
to
[ C o n n e r ' s ] a n k l e b e c a u s e o f t h e change i n [ C o n n e r ' s ]
gait."
I n i t s judgment, the t r i a l
court also stated that
" [ C o n n e r ] has f i l e d a M o t i o n t o Tax C o s t s and t h e
[employer]
has
filed
a response
in
opposition
thereto.
A hearing
on
the
same i s c u r r e n t l y
s c h e d u l e d f o r A p r i l 30, 2010.
Any c o s t s i n c u r r e d by
[Conner] i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f h i s c l a i m t h a t may be
t a x e d a g a i n s t t h e [ e m p l o y e r ] s h a l l be a d d r e s s e d by
s e p a r a t e o r d e r f o l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h a t i s s u e . "
The
trial
court
did
not
make
any
findings
of
fact
or
c o n c l u s i o n s of law w i t h r e s p e c t t o the employer's s t a t u t e - o f limitations
On
May
( c a s e no.
its
24,
of
employer
On May
25, 2010,
filed
c o u r t add
The
trial
on J u n e 14,
the
motion
Conner
t h a t the t r i a l
the
appeal,
Conner's
$5,551.56.
award.
2010,
2090800).
notice
granting
argument.
2010.
trial
to
tax
this
a f t e r the employer
court
costs
entered
in
the
an
court
filed
order
amount
of
requesting
an a d d i t i o n a l $2,085 i n c o s t s t o i t s
Conner's postjudgment motion
employer subsequently
n o t i c e of appeal t o t h i s c o u r t
c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e two
to
a postjudgment motion,
court granted
The
appealed
( c a s e no.
appeals.
12
filed
2091020).
a
This
second
court
2090800/2091020
The
e m p l o y e r a d v a n c e s s e v e r a l a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l .
The
e m p l o y e r f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t does n o t
c o n t a i n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w as r e q u i r e d b y
§
25-5-88,
notice
with
A l a . Code
1975, w i t h
and t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y
regard
t o Conner's
respect
to the issues of
of the statute of l i m i t a t i o n s
claimed
shoulder
and
lower-back
injuries.
"'The p u r p o s e o f A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-88, i s t o
" e n s u r e s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s so t h a t t h e
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t can d e t e r m i n e whether t h e judgment
i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s . " ' 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. 1993)
( q u o t i n g E l b e r t G r e e s o n H o s i e r y M i l l s , I n c . v. I v e y ,
472
So. 2d 1049, 1052 ( A l a . C i v . App.
1985)).
' [ T ] h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s a d u t y t o make a f i n d i n g on
each i s s u e p r e s e n t e d and l i t i g a t e d b e f o r e i t . I n
i n s t a n c e s where t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l s t o make a
f i n d i n g r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d , t h e case
must be r e v e r s e d . ' Thomas v . G o l d K i s t , I n c . , 628
So. 2d 864, 867 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; s e e a l s o
H a r b i n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s S t e e l C o r p . , 356 So. 2d 179
( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) ; a n d Dun & B r a d s t r e e t C o r p . v .
J o n e s , 678 So. 2d 181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) .
In
H a r b i n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s S t e e l Corp., t h i s
court
r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remanded t h e
case because t h e t r i a l c o u r t had f a i l e d t o address
o r t o make f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e o f n o t i c e o f
i n j u r y t o the employer, d e s p i t e the i s s u e being
presented
and l i t i g a t e d .
In Harbin, t h i s
court
stated:
"'In t h e present case t h e q u e s t i o n o f
whether Harbin n o t i f i e d h i s employer o f h i s
i n j u r y was p l e a d e d , c o n t e s t e d a n d s u b m i t t e d
to t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n .
13
2090800/2091020
D e s p i t e t h i s f a c t t h e r e was no f i n d i n g made
on t h i s
issue i n the court's
original
judgment.
Nonetheless,
Harbin
maintains
t h a t t h e absence o f a f i n d i n g o f n o t i c e o f
i n j u r y does n o t r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l s i n c e a
number o f A l a b a m a c a s e s have h e l d t h a t when
a f i n d i n g of the t r i a l court i s merely
meager o r o m i s s i v e , t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t may
examine t h e e v i d e n c e i n o r d e r to d e c i d e i f
the
trial
court's
judgment
c a n be
s u s t a i n e d . E . g . , West P o i n t M f g . Co. v .
Bennett,
263 A l a . 5 7 1 , 83 So. 2d 303
( 1 9 5 5 ) ; A l a b a m a T e x t i l e P r o d u c t s C o r p . v.
G r a n t h a m, 263 A l a . 179, 82 So. 2d 204
(1955).
However, s u c h i s n o t t h e r u l e
when, as h e r e , t h e r e was no f i n d i n g made on
the i s s u e i n q u e s t i o n . '
"356
So. 2d a t 181-82."
Equipment S a l e s
Civ.
C o r p . v. Gwin, 4 So. 3d 1125, 1129-30
(Ala.
App. 2 0 0 8 ) .
We
will
first
address
the question
whether
the
trial
c o u r t i n c l u d e d s u f f i c i e n t 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
regarding
the notice
issue.
With
respect
t o Conner's
alleged shoulder i n j u r y , the t r i a l court c l e a r l y stated i n i t s
judgment t h a t " [the employer] r e c e i v e d a p p r o p r i a t e n o t i c e o f
the
shoulder
injury."
w i t h the requirements
alleged
specific
Therefore,
o f § 25-5-88.
lower-back i n j u r y ,
findings
the t r i a l
of
the t r i a l
fact
or
14
court
complied
With r e s p e c t t o Conner's
c o u r t d i d n o t make a n y
conclusions
of
law
that
2090800/2091020
explicitly
however,
address
that
consequence
notice.
Conner's
flowing
B r i c k Co.
we
trial
"chronic
from
ankle because of the
The
the
court
initial
pain
is
a
injury
back
did
to
[Conner's]
change i n [ C o n n e r ' s ] g a i t . "
v. C a m p b e l l , 409
So.
2d 443
conclude,
natural
In Ragland
( A l a . C i v . App.
1982),
noted:
" [ T ] h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n B e a t r i c e Food
Co. v.
C l e m o n s , [54 A l a . App. 150, 306 So. 2d 18
(1975)_
w h e r e i n we i n d i c a t e d t h a t once t h e e m p l o y e r
has
a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e o f an a c c i d e n t and i n j u r y ,
the
s t a t u t e does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t p r o v i d e
f u r t h e r n o t i c e o r c o n t i n u i n g i n f o r m a t i o n e x c e p t upon
r e q u e s t . I n l i g h t o f B e a t r i c e F o o d s , we a r e
not
c o n v i n c e d t h a t i t was a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e
e m p l o y e r be i n f o r m e d o f t h e b a c k i n j u r y as l o n g as
t h e r e was a r e a s o n a b l e m e d i c a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n
t h e i n j u r y t h e e m p l o y e r was s p e c i f i c a l l y i n f o r m e d o f
and t h e r e s u l t i n g i n j u r y .
In t h i s case, the medical
testimony
indicated
that
the
circumstances
surrounding
employee's
knee
injury
were
not
incompatible
w i t h h i s subsequent back problems.
Thus, h e r e t h e r e was a r e a s o n a b l e m e d i c a l c o n n e c t i o n
b e t w e e n t h e knee i n j u r y and t h e b a c k p r o b l e m . "
409
So.
2d a t
In
this
provided
445-46.
case,
the
trial
court
that
the employer w i t h a c t u a l n o t i c e of the
of Conner's ankle i n j u r y .
The
trial
C o n n e r ' s l o w e r - b a c k i n j u r y was
w h i c h was
found
Conner
had
accident
and
court f u r t h e r found that
t h e r e s u l t o f an a l t e r e d g a i t ,
c a u s e d by C o n n e r ' s a n k l e i n j u r y .
15
Because the
trial
2090800/2091020
c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e was a r e a s o n a b l e
connection
injury,
between Conner's l o w e r - b a c k i n j u r y
C o n n e r was n o t r e q u i r e d
the
trial
court
conclusion
of
t o make
law w i t h
an
and h i s a n k l e
to specifically
employer o f h i s lower-back i n j u r y .
Therefore,
express
respect
medical
n o t i f y the
any f a i l u r e o f
finding
t o whether
of
fact
the
employer
r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f Conner's lower-back i n j u r y merely
the
trial
omissive
court's
caused
t o be meager a n d
a n d does n o t r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l . See , e . g . , Werner Co.
v. W i l l i a m s ,
the
f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s
or
extent
871 So. 2d 845, 853 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003)
some o f t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l
meager o r o m i s s i v e ,
court
("To
may be
we n o t e t h a t a r e v e r s a l i s n o t r e q u i r e d .
I n s t e a d , we m e r e l y c o n d u c t t h e same r e v i e w as we w o u l d o f more
specific
factual
f i n d i n g s t o determine whether t h e u l t i m a t e
f i n d i n g made by t h e t r i a l
court
i s supported
by s u b s t a n t i a l
evidence.").
We
court
law
trial
now t u r n
failed
t o the employer's
the t r i a l
t o make any f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f
on t h e s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s
court's
argument t h a t
judgment
shows
that
issue.
A
review
t h e judgment
does n o t
c o n t a i n any f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w w i t h
16
of the
regard
2090800/2091020
to
t h e s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s i s s u e , w h i c h was r a i s e d b y t h e
employer.
"'This
court
has
recognized
that
s u b s t a n t i a l compliance with the s t a t u t e i s
sufficient.
Fordham v . S o u t h e r n
Phenix
T e x t i l e s , I n c . , 387 So. 2d 204 ( A l a . C i v .
App. 1 9 8 0 ) ; h o w e v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s a
d u t y t o make a f i n d i n g on e a c h
issue
presented
and l i t i g a t e d
before
i t . In
i n s t a n c e s where t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l s t o
make a f i n d i n g r e s p o n s i v e
to the issue
p r e s e n t e d , t h e c a s e must be r e v e r s e d . ' "
Labinal,
(Ala.
So.
I n c . / G l o b e M o t o r s v. A l p h o r d ,
C i v . App. 2000) ( q u o t i n g Thomas v. G o l d K i s t ,
2d 864, 867
Conner's c l a i m s
his
shoulder
( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ) .
trial
failed
regard
whether
court.
Because t h e
t o make any f i n d i n g s o r c o n c l u s i o n s
i s s u e , we must
i t to
make
the
of law w i t h
appropriate
findings
of
with
reverse
c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h e c a u s e t o t h a t
conclusions
767
to the t r i a l
to the s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s
the t r i a l
The i s s u e
and h i s l o w e r b a c k were b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f
was p r e s e n t e d
court
I n c . , 628
f o r compensation f o r h i s a l l e g e d i n j u r i e s t o
limitations
for
767 So. 2d 362, 365
court
fact
and
respect
t o t h a t i s s u e . See L a b i n a l ,
court's
judgment
So. 2d a t 365.
Because
the t r i a l
C o n n e r may be a f f e c t e d by t h e t r i a l
17
awarding
costs
to
court's determination
as
2090800/2091020
t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , we r e v e r s e
t h a t j u d g m e n t as w e l l .
2090800 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.
P i t t m a n and Bryan,
Thompson,
with
J J . , concur.
P.J., concurs
i n part
and d i s s e n t s
i n part,
writing.
Moore, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h o u t
writing.
2091020 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r .
Moore, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h o u t
18
writing.
2090800/2091020
THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g
in
i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g
part.
In
Conner's
i t s judgment,
chronic
the t r i a l
lower-back pain
court
found
that
was a n a t u r a l
f l o w i n g from the i n i t i a l i n j u r y t o Conner's a n k l e .
Plates
and Shapes,
Southeast,
Albert
consequence
M e t a l s USA
Inc., d i d not allege
that
c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r C o n n e r ' s a n k l e was b a r r e d b y t h e a p p l i c a b l e
statute
of limitations.
When
the t r i a l
court
C o n n e r ' s b a c k p a i n as p a r t o f i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n
considered
of the extent
o f C o n n e r ' s d i s a b i l i t y a n d t h e amount o f w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n
b e n e f i t s he was e n t i t l e d t o f o r h i s w o r k - r e l a t e d
implicitly
was
found that
injuries, i t
compensation f o r Conner's back
n o t b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s .
injury
Because
e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h i s f i n d i n g , i t i s due t o be a f f i r m e d .
Reynolds Metals
Civ.
Co. v. S t u l t s ,
App. 1 9 8 8 ) .
legal
See
532 So. 2 d 1035, 1038 ( A l a .
A c c o r d i n g l y , I d i s s e n t from t h a t p o r t i o n o f
t h e main o p i n i o n r e v e r s i n g t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l
court i n
c a s e no. 2090800 on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t f a i l e d t o make f i n d i n g s
of
fact
with
regard
to the s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s issue
c o n c e r n i n g Conner's c l a i m f o r compensation f o r h i s l o w e r - b a c k
injury.
19
2090800/2091020
I concur w i t h
t h e remainder o f t h e main
20
opinion.
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.
