Arvin North American Automotive, Inc. v. Nadine Rodgers

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/08/2011 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 2090970 A r v i n North American Automotive, Inc. v. Nadine Rodgers Appeal from F a y e t t e C i r c u i t Court (CV-99-158.01) MOORE, J u d g e . A r v i n North American appeals trial a from Automotive, I n c . ("the e m p l o y e r " ) , a judgment o f t h e F a y e t t e C i r c u i t court") f i n d i n g judgment i n w h i c h C o u r t ("the t h e employer i n contempt f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e e m p l o y e r was o r d e r e d t o p a y , among 2090970 other things, medical benefits pursuant to the Alabama W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t , A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-1 e t s e q . We d i s m i s s . Background I n A u g u s t 2002, t h e t r i a l 2002 judgment") Rodgers line finding, c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t ("the among ("the e m p l o y e e " ) other things, that had s u s t a i n e d i n j u r i e s Nadine w i t h i n the a n d s c o p e o f h e r employment w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r , t h a t t h e employee anxiety, had and contributing trial been court diagnosed that the with severe work-related depression injuries were cause o f t h e employee's mental d i s o r d e r s . also ordered the employer and t o p a y , among a The other t h i n g s , " t h e c o s t o f r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y m e d i c a l care f o r the injuries s u s t a i n e d b y t h e [ e m p l o y e e ] i n t h e a c c i d e n t as f o u n d b y t h e C o u r t i n t h i s Judgment, as p r o v i d e d b y § 25-5-77 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a . " The e m p l o y e r d i d n o t a p p e a l f r o m t h e 2002 j u d g m e n t . After the entry continued to physician, Dr. Gary Until 2007, of receive t h e 2002 care Newsom, the employer from judgment, her the employee authorized treating f o r her mental-health paid, 2 without dispute, issues. the costs 2090970 associated w i t h D r . Newsom's t r e a t m e n t a n d t h e c o s t s of the m e d i c a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d by him f o r t h e employee. On J a n u a r y 7, 2008, contempt a l l e g i n g willfully that t h e employee a petition for t h e employer had " c o n t e m p t u o u s l y and f a i l e d to provide as p r e s c r i b e d " filed the necessary care f o r h e r b y D r . Newsom. recover, among o t h e r things, incurred f o r D r . Newsom's s e r v i c e s and m e d i c i n e s The e m p l o y e e s o u g h t t o t h e amounts she h a d p a i d o r h a d a n d t h e amounts she h a d p a i d o r had i n c u r r e d f o r m e d i c a t i o n s t h a t had been by D r . Newsom t o t r e a t h e r m e n t a l - h e a l t h claimed, sought t h e employer had r e f u s e d to recover the mileage o b t a i n i n g her medical care prescribed illnesses t h a t , she t o pay. The e m p l o y e e also expenses associated with as a u t h o r i z e d by t h e terms o f t h e 2002 j u d g m e n t . The employee employer answered t h e p e t i t i o n , was seeking payment asserting f o r services that the that were n o t r e l a t e d t o h e r w o r k p l a c e i n j u r i e s and n o t w i t h i n t h e scope o f t h e 2002 j u d g m e n t ; t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r h a d r e v o k e d D r . Newsom's authority for to treat t h e e m p l o y e e ; t h a t D r . Newsom's payment f r o m t h e e m p l o y e r h a d n o t b e e n t i m e l y t h a t t h e employee's m e n t a l - h e a l t h 3 requests submitted; i s s u e s h a d begun b e f o r e h e r 2090970 employment w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r ; t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e h a d s u f f e r e d numerous s t r e s s o r s u n r e l a t e d t o h e r employment a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e 2002 j u d g m e n t ; a n d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e was n o t e n t i t l e d to reimbursement f o r medications t h a t had been p r e s c r i b e d t o t r e a t any m e n t a l d i s o r d e r s o t h e r than The trial court conducted depression. a hearing on t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n on A p r i l 13, 2010. A t t h a t h e a r i n g , for t h e employee and c o u n s e l counsel f o r t h e e m p l o y e r d i s c u s s e d on t h e r e c o r d w h e t h e r t h e y were i n a g r e e m e n t a s t o t h e amount o f t h e medical the and mileage b e n e f i t s i n c o n t r o v e r s y . following colloquy At that hearing, occurred: "[EMPLOYER'S COUNSEL]: ... So, r e a l l y , h e r e , I g u e s s , k i n d o f i n a l i a b i l i t y mode and t h e n we'd have t o f i g u r e o u t we're first; "[EMPLOYEE'S COUNSEL]: W e l l , I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e y a r e g o i n g t o q u a r r e l w i t h us a b o u t n i c k e l s a n d dimes. She w o u l d be owed t h e m i l e a g e ; s h e w o u l d be owed what she p a i d on t h e m e d i c i n e . We're n o t a s k i n g y o u t o do t h a t . We j u s t n e e d a d e c r e e as t o w h e t h e r t h e y c o r r e c t l y t e r m i n a t e d what t h e y were p r o v i d i n g t h r o u g h -¬ "THE COURT: W e l l , l e t ' s s a y t h a t I g r a n t i t ... t h e n y ' a l l a r e g o i n g t o a g r e e on how much money? "[EMPLOYEE'S COUNSEL]: Oh y e s . "[EMPLOYER'S COUNSEL]: W e l l , I t h i n k t h e r e ' s a c h a n c e we c a n . I t ' s j u s t t r e a t m e n t . I t ' s j u s t t h e number o f v i s i t s . I won't s a y we're g o i n g t o a g r e e . 4 2090970 I w o u l d s a y t h e m i l e a g e i s g o i n g t o be p r o b l e m a t i c . I d o n ' t have any i d e a how we do t h a t . "[EMPLOYEE'S COUNSEL]: You j u s t c o u n t how many t i m e s s h e ' s down t h e r e and m u l t i p l y i t by the d i s t a n c e from here to T u s c a l o o s a . " "[EMPLOYER'S COUNSEL]: I'm n o t s a y i n g t h a t . I t h i n k i t ' s i m p o s s i b l e to get i n t o the d o l l a r s today b e c a u s e we d o n ' t have enough i n f o r m a t i o n . "THE COURT: Okay. "[EMPLOYER'S COUNSEL]: I t h i n k we c a n , a t l e a s t ... you know, i f you f i n d y o u r s e l f t h e r e , you c o u l d r u l e t h a t way, and t h e n s a y , 'go a g r e e . ' And t h e n , i f we c a n ' t -¬ "THE COURT: I g o t c h a . A l l right. T h a t ' s what I n e e d e d t o know. A l l right. Go ahead." The h e a r i n g t h e n p r o c e e d e d on t h e i s s u e o f c o m p e n s a b i l i t y . No f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e was o f f e r e d as t o t h e amount o f t h e m e d i c a l and m i l e a g e b e n e f i t s i n c o n t r o v e r s y , and t h e r e c o r d does not i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s e v e r r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t o r e n t e r e d a s t i p u l a t i o n as t o t h e amounts a t On May 27, 2010, the f i n d i n g t h a t the employer trial issue. court entered a judgment h a d v i o l a t e d t h e 2002 j u d g m e n t ordered the f o l l o w i n g : "1. That [the employer] pay, or r e i m b u r s e [the e m p l o y e e ] f o r p a y m e n t s she has made, a l l c o s t s and b i l l s s u b m i t t e d by Dr. G a r y Newsom f o r s e r v i c e s 5 and 2090970 r e n d e r e d t o [ t h e e m p l o y e e ] as w e l l as t h e c o s t o f r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y p s y c h i a t r i c s e r v i c e s and c a r e as may be o r become n e c e s s a r y i n t h e f u t u r e . "2. T h a t [ t h e e m p l o y e r ] p a y , o r r e i m b u r s e [ t h e e m p l o y e e ] f o r payments she h a s made, a l l b i l l s a n d c o s t s f o r m e d i c a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d b y D r . G a r y Newsom as w e l l as t h e c o s t s o f m e d i c a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d b y Dr. Newsom as may be o r become n e c e s s a r y i n t h e future. "3. That [the employer] pay f o r t h e m i l e a g e c l a i m e d by [ t h e employee] f o r t r a v e l t o Dr. Gary Newsom, as w e l l as m i l e a g e c l a i m e d b y t h e [employee] as may be o r become n e c e s s a r y i n t h e f u t u r e . "4. That [the employee's] c o u n s e l i s e n t i t l e d t o an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e i n t h e amount o f $3,000.00 a n d t h a t t h e [employer] i s Ordered t o pay s a i d a t t o r n e y f e e s o f $3,000.00. "5. That [ t h e employee] i s entitled to r e i m b u r s e m e n t i n t h e amount o f $700.00 f o r t h e c o s t o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f D r . G a r y Newsom a n d t h e C o u r t R e p o r t e r ' s c o s t i n t h e amount o f $295.00 a n d [ t h e e m p l o y e r ] i s O r d e r e d t o p a y t h o s e sums." Other than t h e amounts identified i n i t s May 27, 2010, judgment r e l a t i n g t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , t h e t r i a l d i d n o t i d e n t i f y t h e amounts t h e e m p l o y e r was t o p a y . court On J u l y 7, 2 0 1 0 , t h e e m p l o y e r a p p e a l e d . Analysis " ' [ J ] u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s a r e o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t a n y t i m e a n d do so e v e n ex mero motu. S i n g l e t o n v . Graham, 716 So. 2d 224, 225 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) 6 2090970 ( q u o t i n g W a l l a c e v. (Ala. 2d C i v . App. 711, may not 712 Tee Jays waived; jurisdiction may be 210, 211 i n t u r n Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 1997), q u o t i n g (Ala. 1987)). be Mfg. Co., 689 So. So. "'"[S]ubject-matter a court's r a i s e d a t any lack of t i m e by 1 So. 3d 1048, D.G.B., 913 turn So. C . J . L . v. 1050 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 452, 455 M.W.B., 868 2008) 2d 451, p a r t y and may M.B.L. v. G.G.L., ( q u o t i n g S.B.U. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. So. jurisdiction subject-matter any e v e n be r a i s e d by a c o u r t ex mero motu."'" 2d 2005), q u o t i n g 453 (Ala. Civ. in App. 2003)). I n i t s May 27, 2010, judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r had v i o l a t e d t h e 2002 j u d g m e n t and i t o r d e r e d e m p l o y e r t o pay Dr. Newsom on some u n s p e c i f i e d amount t o t h e e m p l o y e e o r the employee's b e h a l f . O r d i n a r i l y , an can be b r o u g h t o n l y f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . 12-22-2. 2d 354, 361-62 ( A l a . 2004), our supreme c o u r t I n c . , 892 stated: "'Where t h e amount o f damages i s an i s s u e , ... t h e r e c o g n i z e d r u l e o f l a w i n A l a b a m a i s t h a t no a p p e a l w i l l l i e from a judgment w h i c h does not a d j u d i c a t e t h a t i s s u e by a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f t h e amount o f t h o s e damages.' Moody v. S t a t e ex r e l . Payne , 351 So. 2d 547, 551 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) . 'That a j u d g m e n t i s n o t f i n a l when t h e amount o f damages has n o t b e e n fixed by i t i s unquestionable.' 'Automatic' 7 to appeal A l a . Code 1975, I n D z w o n k o w s k i v. S o n i t r o l o f M o b i l e , the § So. 2090970 S p r i n k l e r C o r p . o f A m e r i c a v. B.F. G o o d r i c h Co., 351 So. 2d 555, 557 ( A l a . 1977) ( r e c i t a t i o n of the Rule 5 4 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] f o r m u l a was i n e f f e c t i v e t o render appealable a judgment that resolved l i a b i l i t y , b u t r e s e r v e d t h e i s s u e o f damages f o r future resolution)." 1 In W i l l i a m s Power, I n c . v. J o h n s o n , 880 App. 2003), in applying the So. foregoing 2d 459 (Ala. Civ. rule, this court d i s m i s s e d an a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g a w o r k e r medical b e n e f i t s but medical benefits. see SCI 1207, failing t o s p e c i f y t h e amount o f t h o s e D e s p i t e some c r i t i c i s m o f t h e r e a s o n i n g i n J o h n s o n , Alabama F u n e r a l Servs., 1215-16 ( A l a . C i v . App. Inc. 2007) v. Hester, i t s holding by dismissing awarding u n s p e c i f i e d medical the ground ascertain constitute Morgan, that and those declare a final [Ms. rights judgment. See 2090219 June 25, 2010] 2d appeals consistently from judgments b e n e f i t s to i n j u r e d workers judgments the So. (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t , j o i n e d by Thomas, J . ) , t h i s c o u r t has applied 984 d i d not of the fully and finally as to F o r t James H o l d i n g Co. v. So. parties on 3d so , (Ala. The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t p u r p o r t t o c e r t i f y i t s j u d g m e n t as f i n a l , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a l t h o u g h , as r e c o g n i z e d i n D z w o n k o w s k i v. S o n i t r o l o f M o b i l e , I n c . , s u p r a , s u c h a c e r t i f i c a t i o n w o u l d have b e e n i n e f f e c t i v e . See SCI A l a b a m a F u n e r a l S e r v s . , I n c . v. H e s t e r , 984 So. 2d 1207, 1210-11 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . 1 8 2090970 Civ. App. (Ala. 2010); Ex p a r t e C & D L o g g i n g , C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ; 949 So. 2d 946, 947-48 and A v o n d a l e 3 So. 3d 930, 935 Mills, ( A l a . C i v . App. I n c . v. G a l l u p s , 2006). Because the t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o a s c e r t a i n o r f i x i n i t s judgment t h e amounts of medical and mileage benefits the e m p l o y e r was o r d e r e d t o p a y t o o r on b e h a l f o f t h e e m p l o y e e , the judgment a p p e a l e d from i s n o n f i n a l . dismiss the appeal. We, therefore, must See Tatum v. Freeman, 858 So. 2d 979, 980 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ("'When i t i s d e t e r m i n e d appealed from i s not a f i n a l t h a t an o r d e r judgment, i t i s the duty o f the C o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l ex mero motu.'" ( q u o t i n g P o w e l l v. Republic Nat'l 359, Life I n s . Co., 293 A l a . 101, 102, 300 So. 2d 360 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ) ) . The e m p l o y e e ' s r e q u e s t f o r t h e a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s on appeal i s denied. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 9 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.