Ex parte G.A. West & Company. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: G.A. West & Company v. Ricky McGhee)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/24/11 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 Reporter of 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, 2010-2011 2100507 Ex p a r t e G.A. West & Company PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : G.A. West & Company v. Ricky McGhee) (Escambia C i r c u i t Court, CV-05-170) BRYAN, J u d g e . This this i s the second court. S e e G.A. time West these p a r t i e s have & Co. v . McGhee, been before 58 S o . 3 d 167 2100507 (Ala. & C i v . A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) ("G.A. W e s t " ) . Company judgment ("G.A. West") awarding I n G.A. W e s t , G.A. W e s t appealed Ricky from the t r i a l court's McGhee p e r m a n e n t - t o t a l - d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s under t h e Alabama W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t , § 25-5-1 et seq., court's A l a . Code 1975. In that case, judgment as i t d e t e r m i n e d weekly earnings affirmed 177. G.A. i n a l l other On r e m a n d t o t h e t r i a l relevant earnings. West McGhee's that weekly from being the t r i a l earnings on should only denying trial determine court's order permitted thep a r t i e s t o conduct West directing court entered G.A. W e s t ' s m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r . that the t r i a l t o determine then The t r i a l remand. on t h e e v i d e n c e order hearing at t r i a l . conducted court based weekly f o ra protective had been stated submitted of h i s average court would hold McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y petitioned the t r i a l court this court court to vacate 2 for a we t o conduct that and average 58 S o . 3 d a t c o u r t , McGhee s o u g h t the t r i a l discovery contended average McGhee's respects. to a determination G.A. W e s t m o v e d preventing the t r i a l t o b e $ 1 , 3 2 8 . 2 5 , a n d we r e m a n d e d t h e c a s e ; t h e judgment discovery order insofar we r e v e r s e d an The discovery an e v i d e n t i a r y earnings. writ i t s order, of G.A. mandamus to grant G.A. 2100507 West's p r o t e c t i v e order, weekly earnings without and to determine r e c e i v i n g any McGhee's additional average evidence. "A w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y , a n d i t w i l l be ' i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order s o u g h t ; 2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d 4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 501 , 503 ( A l a . 1993). A writ o f mandamus w i l l issue only in s i t u a t i o n s where o t h e r r e l i e f i s u n a v a i l a b l e or i s i n a d e q u a t e , a n d i t c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e for a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e D r i l l P a r t s & S e r v . Co., 590 So. 2 d 252 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " Ex parte (Ala. Empire Fire & Marine I n s . Co., 720 So. in this case 2d i s whether the trial 893, 894 court may 1998). The receive issue additional e v i d e n c e on r e m a n d i n d e t e r m i n i n g average weekly earnings. o f McGhee's a v e r a g e I n G.A. weekly W e s t , we discussed McGhee's the earnings: "G.A. W e 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 e r r e d i n determining McGhee's average weekly earnings. Section 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, establishes m e t h o d s f o r c a l c u l a t i n g an e m p l o y e e ' s a v e r a g e w e e k l y earnings. That s e c t i o n f i r s t p r o v i d e s : " ' C o m p e n s a t i o n u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be c o m p u t e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s . A v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s s h a l l be b a s e d on t h e w a g e s , a s d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 1 ( 6 ) [ , A l a . Code 1 975,] o f t h e i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e i n t h e e m p l o y m e n t i n w h i c h he o r 3 issue 2100507 s h e was w o r k i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n j u r y d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f 52 w e e k s i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e d a t e o f t h e i n j u r y d i v i d e d by 52, b u t i f t h e i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e l o s t more than seven c o n s e c u t i v e c a l e n d a r days d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d , a l t h o u g h n o t i n t h e same w e e k , then the e a r n i n g s f o r the remainder of the p e r i o d , a l t h o u g h n o t i n t h e same w e e k , t h e n t h e e a r n i n g s f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e 52 w e e k s s h a l l be d i v i d e d b y t h e n u m b e r o f w e e k s r e m a i n i n g a f t e r t h e t i m e so l o s t h a s been deducted.' " S e c t i o n 25-5-57(b) p r o v i d e s a second method f o r c a l c u l a t i n g a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s i f an e m p l o y e e i s i n j u r e d a f t e r h a v i n g w o r k e d f o r an e m p l o y e r f o r f e w e r t h a n 52 w e e k s : "'Where t h e e m p l o y m e n t p r i o r t o t h e i n j u r y extended over a p e r i o d of l e s s than 52 weeks, the method of d i v i d i n g the e a r n i n g s d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d by t h e number o f weeks and p a r t s t h e r e o f d u r i n g w h i c h t h e employee e a r n e d w a g e s s h a l l be f o l l o w e d , p r o v i d e d r e s u l t s j u s t and f a i r t o b o t h p a r t i e s will t h e r e b y be o b t a i n e d . ' for " S e c t i o n 25-5-57(b) a l s o p r o v i d e s a t h i r d method c a l c u l a t i n g average weekly e a r n i n g s : "'Where b y r e a s o n o f t h e s h o r t n e s s o f t h e t i m e d u r i n g w h i c h t h e employee has been i n the employment of h i s or her employer or the casual nature or terms of the employment i t i s i m p r a c t i c a b l e t o compute the average weekly earnings as above d e f i n e d , r e g a r d s h a l l be h a d t o t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y a m o u n t w h i c h d u r i n g t h e 52 w e e k s p r i o r t o t h e i n j u r y was b e i n g e a r n e d b y a p e r s o n i n t h e same g r a d e , e m p l o y e d a t t h e same w o r k b y t h e same e m p l o y e r , and i f t h e r e i s no p e r s o n s o e m p l o y e d , b y a p e r s o n 4 2100507 i n t h e same g r a d e e m p l o y e d i n t h e same c l a s s o f e m p l o y m e n t i n t h e same d i s t r i c t . ' "This court has stated: "'[T]he employee has the burden of p r e s e n t i n g evidence f o r computation of h i s a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage. Cook T r a n s p o r t s , I n c . v . B e a v e r s , 528 So. 2 d 875 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1988). ... [If] the formulas for d e t e r m i n i n g average weekly e a r n i n g s s e t out [in § 25-5-57(b)] are i m p r a c t i c a b l e to a p p l y i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e so as t o a r r i v e a t a j u s t and f a i r r e s u l t t o b o t h p a r t i e s , much m u s t be l e f t t o t h e s o u n d j u d g m e n t a n d judicial d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court. U n e x c e l l e d M f g . C o r p . v . R a g l a n d , 52 A l a . A p p . 5 7 , 289 So. 2 d 626 (1974); Aluminum Workers I n t ' l v . C h a m p i o n , 45 A l a . A p p . 5 7 0 , 233 So. 2 d 511 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . ' " S t e v i s o n v. Q u a l i f i e d P e r s . , 1180 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) . I n c . , 571 So. 2 d 1178, "At trial, McGhee, who had the burden of p r e s e n t i n g evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s average weekly earnings, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was h i r e d b y G.A. West t o w o r k on a p r o j e c t ('the p r o j e c t ' ) i n v o l v i n g t h e s h u t t i n g down o f a p u l p m i l l . McGhee t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was not a regular employee of G.A. West. McGhee's h o u r l y wage was $16.50. ... McGhee was i n j u r e d d u r i n g h i s s e c o n d day of employment with G.A. West. A document a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a t trial i n d i c a t e d t h a t M c G h e e was p a i d b y G.A. West f o r w o r k i n g 10 h o u r s d a i l y f o r 2 d a y s . " J a s o n W a r d , an i r o n w o r k e r who worked with M c G h e e f o r G.A. West, t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l . Ward testified that McGhee was injured during the beginning of t h e 'pre-down' phase of t h e p r o j e c t . Ward stated that the pre-down phase lasted a p p r o x i m a t e l y a m o n t h a n d t h a t he w o r k e d 10 h o u r s a 5 2100507 day f o r 5 d a y s a week d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . Ward t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p r e - d o w n p h a s e was f o l l o w e d b y a 'shutdown' phase t h a t l a s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y a month. Ward s t a t e d t h a t , d u r i n g the shutdown phase, he w o r k e d 12 h o u r s a d a y f o r 7 d a y s a w e e k . "In i t s judgment, the t r i a l court stated: " ' [ S e c t i o n ] 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( b ) ... s e t s f o r t h t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage i s t o be c a l c u l a t e d . However, none o f t h e scenarios o u t l i n e d i n that s t a t u t e f i t the f a c t s of t h i s case because of the f a c t that M r . M c G h e e was i n j u r e d on t h e s e c o n d d a y o f the work, and a f t e r t h e p r o j e c t had o n l y begun. Therefore, i n keeping with the case of S l a y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Company, I n c . v . Miller, 702 S o . 2 d 142 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997), the court finds that the most equitable means of arriving at the a p p r o p r i a t e a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage i s t o u s e a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e wages p a i d t o Mr. M c G h e e f o r t h e two d a y s w h i c h he w o r k e d a n d t h e t e s t i m o n y f r o m Mr. Ward d o c u m e n t i n g t h e w a g e s he w o u l d h a v e e a r n e d b u t f o r t h e injury. Under t h a t a n a l y s i s , the court hereby finds that Mr. McGhee's average w e e k l y wage on t h e d a t e o f h i s i n j u r y was $1,328.25 " B e c a u s e M c G h e e h a d w o r k e d f e w e r t h a n 52 w e e k s for G.A. West b e f o r e h i s i n j u r y , t h e f i r s t method p r e s c r i b e d by § 25-5-57(b) i s c l e a r l y i n a p p l i c a b l e . B o t h McGhee a n d G.A. West c o n t e n d t h a t u s i n g t h e second method found in § 25-5-57(b) would be i n e q u i t a b l e b e c a u s e M c G h e e w o r k e d f o r o n l y two d a y s for G.A. West. G.A. West a r g u e s t h a t t h e trial c o u r t e r r e d by not a p p l y i n g t h e t h i r d method f o u n d i n § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( b ) . M c G h e e a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e he was injured soon a f t e r b e g i n n i n g work on a specific project, i t w o u l d be i n e q u i t a b l e , i n c a l c u l a t i n g McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s , t o r e l y on t h e 6 2100507 e a r n i n g s of a w e l d e r / i r o n worker accumulated d u r i n g the 52-week period immediately before McGhee's injury. of "Our s u p r e m e c o u r t h a s d i s c u s s e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n the t h i r d method found i n § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( b ) : " ' I t m u s t be n o t e d t h a t so much o f the p r o v i s i o n as d e a l s w i t h c a s e s f a l l i n g u n d e r [ t h e t h i r d m e t h o d ] d o e s n o t make i t a h a r d a n d f a s t r u l e on t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a w a r d t h e same w a g e s o r e a r n i n g s a s t h o s e e a r n e d by o t h e r s t h e r e r e f e r r e d t o . I t simply r e q u i r e s t h a t the c o u r t must have ' r e g a r d ' to such average weekly earnings of o t h e r s i n m a k i n g an a w a r d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , b u t d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h e a m o u n t f i x e d m u s t be i d e n t i c a l to the weekly earnings of the others. In other words, i t must be regarded as an evidential, though not c o n c l u s i v e , f a c t o r , i n the ascertainment of the award in hand, taking into consideration, of course, any physical differences s u c h as t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n or constancy i n the r e s p e c t i v e employments.' " G a r r i s o n v . W o o d w a r d I r o n Co., So. 64, 64 (1923). 210 A l a . 45, 46, 97 "In a r g u i n g t h a t the t h i r d method s h o u l d be a p p l i e d , G.A. W e s t f o c u s e s on a d o c u m e n t p u r p o r t i n g t o show t h e e a r n i n g s o f an u n n a m e d i r o n w o r k e r who h a d w o r k e d f o r G.A. West d u r i n g t h e 52-week p e r i o d p r e c e d i n g McGhee's a c c i d e n t . The o n l y i n d i c a t i o n on t h e d o c u m e n t t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e i s an i r o n w o r k e r i s the h a n d w r i t t e n n o t a t i o n 'Iron Worker' at the top of the document. L i k e McGhee, t h e unnamed e m p l o y e e e a r n e d $16.50 p e r h o u r . The d o c u m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t the employee earned $37,759.67, or a w e e k l y average of $726.15, during the 52-week period before McGhee's a c c i d e n t . 7 2100507 "When c o u n s e l f o r G.A. West s o u g h t t o a d m i t t h e document at t r i a l , counsel f o r McGhee objected, stating: 'I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e r e ' s b e e n any proper f o u n d a t i o n l a i d t h a t he's a s i m i l a r employee [to McGhee]. I d o n ' t know who t h i s e m p l o y e e was. We d o n ' t know w h a t t h e j o b was ' The t r i a l court i n i t i a l l y s u s t a i n e d the o b j e c t i o n to the document. However, the t r i a l c o u r t l a t e r a d m i t t e d the document o v e r t h e c o n t i n u e d o b j e c t i o n of McGhee's c o u n s e l . When t h e trial court admitted the document, the t r i a l court stated: "'I'm g o i n g t o a d m i t [ t h e d o c u m e n t ] on t h e g r o u n d s o f w h a t y o u h a v e j u s t now raised[, i.e., t o show t h e w o r k a c t i v i t y at the m i l l , ] but I ' l l make i t r e a l c l e a r , I'm a d m i t t i n g i t , b u t I ' l l be [ t h e ] g a u g e r o f t h e w e i g h t t o g i v e i t . ... I'm n o t g o i n g t o g i v e i t v e r y much w e i g h t b e c a u s e ... you j u s t g r a b b e d one e m p l o y e e o u t o f t h e pot a n d i t may be i n d i c a t i v e o f t h a t t o some e x t e n t , i t may h a v e some b e a r i n g on t h i s , so i t w o u l d be s o m e t h i n g t h a t I w o u l d l o o k at[.] [ B ] u t I ' l l h a v e t o d e t e r m i n e as I s t u d y i t and t h i n k t h r o u g h and compare i t t o t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e as t o how much w e i g h t I'm g o i n g t o g i v e i t . ' "The t h i r d method p r e s c r i b e d by § 25-5-57(b) r e q u i r e s the t r i a l c o u r t to 'regard' the average w e e k l y e a r n i n g s o f an e m p l o y e e s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d t o McGhee. The trial c o u r t , i n c o m p u t i n g McGhee's average weekly earnings, i n d i c a t e d that i t would c o n s i d e r the document showing the e a r n i n g s of an e m p l o y e e p u r p o r t e d l y s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d t o McGhee. However, the trial court, concerned that that e m p l o y e e ' s w o r k may n o t a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t t h e w o r k t h a t McGhee p e r f o r m e d and w o u l d h a v e p e r f o r m e d f o r G.A. West, e v i d e n t l y a s s i g n e d the document very l i m i t e d weight. Under the t h i r d method found i n § 25-5-57(b), although a trial c o u r t must consider evidence of the average weekly earnings of a 8 2100507 s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d employee, that evidence i s not conclusive. G a r r i s o n , 210 A l a . a t 4 6 , 97 S o . a t 64. A s n o t e d , a t r i a l c o u r t may d e p a r t f r o m t h e m e t h o d s p r e s c r i b e d by § 25-5-57(b) i f t h o s e methods f a i l t o produce a j u s t and f a i r r e s u l t . S t e v i s o n , 571 S o . 2d a t 1180. I n s u c h s i t u a t i o n s , much m u s t b e l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g an e m p l o y e e ' s a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s . Id. Given the f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n d e v i a t i n g from t h e methods found i n § 25-5-57(b) i n d e t e r m i n i n g McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s . "Although the t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n d e v i a t i n g from t h e methods p r e s c r i b e d by § 25-557(b), we cannot affirm the trial court's calculation o f McGhee's average weekly earnings. The a m o u n t d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t r i a l court t o be McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s -- $ 1 , 3 2 8 . 2 5 -¬ a p p e a r s t o be a n a m o u n t c l o s e r t o M c G h e e ' s maximum p o s s i b l e weekly earnings than h i s a c t u a l average weekly earnings. "McGhee t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was h i r e d b y G.A. W e s t t o w o r k on t h e p r o j e c t a n d t h a t he was n o t a r e g u l a r e m p l o y e e o f G.A. W e s t . McGhee f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d : "'Q. [ B y c o u n s e l f o r G.A. West:] ... [ B ] e f o r e you went t o work w i t h G.A. West, i t was your practice to work shutdowns f o r companies, right? "'A. and Y e s , s i r . A n d we "'Q. You'd work few weeks t h e r e ? "'A. Yes, "'Q. And "'A. Yes, -- a few weeks s i r . you had p e r i o d s s i r . 9 -¬ here 2100507 "'Q. -- P r i o r t o g o i n g t o w o r k f o r G.A. West where you were o u t o f work f o r extended p e r i o d s of time? "'A. Yes, sir.' "The trial c o u r t c a l c u l a t e d McGhee's average weekly e a r n i n g s t o be $1,328.25. That amount i n d i c a t e s t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage t h a t M c G h e e w o u l d have e a r n e d d u r i n g the p r o j e c t , which l a s t e d two m o n t h s , h a d he n o t b e e n i n j u r e d . However, that amount does n o t a p p e a r t o r e f l e c t t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s t h a t McGhee w o u l d h a v e e a r n e d o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f a y e a r w o r k i n g as a w e l d e r a n d an i r o n worker. M c G h e e a g r e e d t h a t he was u n e m p l o y e d f o r ' e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s o f t i m e ' b e f o r e w o r k i n g f o r G.A. W e s t a n d t h a t he w o u l d 'work a f e w w e e k s h e r e a n d few weeks t h e r e . ' He a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he was h i r e d b y G.A. West s p e c i f i c a l l y t o w o r k on the project. M c G h e e ' s t e s t i m o n y s u g g e s t i n g t h a t he was s p o r a d i c a l l y e m p l o y e d a s a w e l d e r a n d an i r o n w o r k e r i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the t r i a l court's d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s a r e $1,328.25. T h a t a m o u n t r e p r e s e n t s an a v e r a g e 6 7 - h o u r w o r k w e e k -- 40 r e g u l a r h o u r s a n d 27 o v e r t i m e h o u r s -- a t M c G h e e ' s h o u r l y wage o f $ 1 6 . 5 0 . The c a l c u l a t i o n o f the average weekly earnings should determine the a m o u n t t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e h a s l o s t due t o t h e i n j u r y . See E x p a r t e M u r r a y , 490 So. 2 d 1 2 3 8 , 1241 ( A l a . 1986). Although the t r i a l court's c a l c u l a t i o n of McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t s the e a r n i n g s t h a t McGhee l o s t d u r i n g t h e d u r a t i o n o f the p r o j e c t , 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 trial court's calculation accurately reflects the e a r n i n g s t h a t M c G h e e c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o l o s e o v e r the c o u r s e o f an e n t i r e y e a r . A c c o r d i n g l y , we m u s t reverse that part of the judgment determining McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s . fi "We reverse the judgment 10 of the trial court 2100507 i n s o f a r as i t d e t e r m i n e d McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y e a r n i n g s t o be $ 1 , 3 2 8 . 2 5 . I n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s , we a f f i r m the judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t . " 58 So. 3d a t G.A. West McGhee's evidence submitted trial argues that average weekly additional was 170-77. court determine trial earnings a n d may at t r i a l . should the on consider Conversely, receive court, remand, only in may not receive the evidence McGhee argues a d d i t i o n a l evidence McGhee's a v e r a g e w e e k l y determining to that that the properly earnings. " ' " I t i s t h e d u t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , on r e m a n d , t o comply s t r i c t l y w i t h t h e mandate o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t r u e i n t e n t and m e a n i n g , as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e r e v i e w i n g court. No judgment other than that d i r e c t e d or p e r m i t t e d b y t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t may b e e n t e r e d The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i s f i n a l a s t o a l l m a t t e r s b e f o r e i t , becomes t h e law o f t h e c a s e , and must be e x e c u t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m a n d a t e , without granting a new trial or taking additional evidence "'" Ex p a r t e parte E d w a r d s , 727 Alabama quoting i n turn Our supreme the Power 5 Am. court S o . 2 d 7 9 2 , 794 Co., 431 So. 2d ( A l a . 1998) 151, 155 J u r . 2d A p p e a l and E r r o r has s t a t e d t h a t "a t r i a l Ex ( A l a . 1983), § 991 court a u t h o r i t y to reopen f o r a d d i t i o n a l testimony has been remanded (quoting (1962)). does not have a case that t o i t , e x c e p t w h e r e e x p r e s s l y d i r e c t e d t o do 11 2100507 so." Ex p a r t e Queen, 959 So. 2d 620, A l t h o u g h t h i s c o u r t i n G.A. the trial now conclude receive court weekly determined he wages West, 58 approach he So. f o r the weekly 3d i n G.A. court "'a days but However, West. McGhee's trial The Mr. by to using earned a t 172. court we t o M r . McGhee f o r t h e t w o paid have the earnings and t h e t e s t i m o n y from would trial determine Originally, average direct e v i d e n c e on r e m a n d , to properly earnings. o f t h e wages worked additional evidence ( A l a . 2006). West d i d n o t e x p r e s s l y i t i s necessary McGhee's combination the that additional average which to receive 622 Ward documenting f o r the i n j u r y . ' " this remaining G.A. court rejected evidence that that may be u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e McGhee's average weekly earnings c o n s i s t s of the the document worker. trial may indicating However, court, concerned not a c c u r a t e l y would that unnamed iron i n our p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n , noted of an "the [ t h e unnamed i r o n worker's] f o r G.A. West, document v e r y l i m i t e d weight." 58 S o . 3 d a t 1 7 3 . the t r i a l already court i s limited submitted, work r e f l e c t t h e w o r k t h a t McGhee p e r f o r m e d performed if have a s we earnings then evidently and assigned the On remand, to considering only the evidence the t r i a l 12 court would seemingly be 2100507 placed i n the document, weight. the p o s i t i o n of which the attempt to to squarely before permitting the that evidently the issue we gave of on McGhee's very remand the the little permitted average reopening acknowledge submission iron-worker court understandably determine the us, recognize presenting that evidence weekly earnings. in an weekly evidence usefulness o f a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e on 1990)). preclude an at G.A. Inc., McGhee the W e s t , 58 appellate is of remand i n a d d i t i o n a l evidence 567 So. 1267 on (Ala. So. 2d 11 80 1 17 8 , remand. In A l d r i d g e the awarding appeal, supreme our damages court (Ala. in noted 13 a Civ. Following judgment the that amount the court v. plaintiffs trial entered average Stevison from p e r m i t t i n g a t r i a l 1990), of of such a burden does trial, plaintiffs, his (citing a l l e g i n g breach of c o n t r a c t . court of burden 3d a t 171 defendants, the the So. 571 court had calculation However, the e x i s t e n c e take 2d trial regarding Q u a l i f i e d Pers., App. on case. We v. rely a d d i t i o n a l evidence accurately Now to court the t r i a l submit earnings. this trial Accordingly, parties having not to Dolbeer, sued a the nonjury in favor of the of $10,270. On plaintiffs had the 2100507 burden of p r o d u c i n g calculate affirmed evidence damages. the liability, 567 trial but So. court's The evidence did submitted the Id. evidentiary awarding hearing sufficient to would have occupied also Lolley (reversing court of v. a t o c o n d u c t an attorney's Similar fees t o an and i t determined the the court and remanded breach Bank, amount reversed an to the case that the 2d the evidentiary hearing damages "for would position occurred." So. remanding of that portion amount not 4 94 respect 19 case f o r the the reflect injury. 1238, 1241 employee's See the average be 1986) the trial determination considering specific guidelines). a w a r d o f damages f o r a b r e a c h amount that the employee I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a p e r Co. (Ala. an See (Ala. to of they Id. of contract, a c a l c u l a t i o n o f an i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e ' s a v e r a g e w e e k l y should court the support with [plaintiffs] the Citizens judgment i n s o f a r as determine had supreme to the the The judgment damages restore 1270. to i n Aldridge determined that not to at the court Therefore, judgment 2d judgment i t reversed amount o f damages. awarded. that would a l l o w a f a c t - f i n d e r 1986). weekly An accurate earnings 14 is has earnings lost due to v . M u r r a y , 490 So. 2d of an calculation essential to a fair 2100507 award in of workers' the record, accurate attempt evidence to example, evidence on i n Alabama plaintiffs our in defendant remand an Power supreme a On trial. the Company court a duty case remand, The the a judgment i n the defendant's Power Co., the supreme essential already court element mandamus 151 of therefore, a new t r i a l directing court the that On the was u n n e c e s s a r y . 15 For 2d that to 760 the supreme enter opinion. for a the trial a Id. new supreme court to Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a mandamus issue of review, duty, negligence claim, decided i n favor an f o r the The a motion favor. the p l a i n t i f f s ' been c o n c l u s i v e l y judgment petitioned ( A l a . 1983). determined So. concluding filed subsequently enter 2d 409 t h e supreme c o u r t ' s for a So. Smith, trial as mandate. to the p l a i n t i f f s . for seeking be p e r c e i v e d court's action, court 431 of may v. an weekly earnings. reversed a the p l a i n t i f f s defendant writ i n what negligence d i d n o t owe remanded 764. evidence i s necessary to ensure appellate judgment i n accordance w i t h at to the l i m i t e d o f McGhee's a v e r a g e undermine 1981), court Due c a s e d o e s n o t p r e s e n t an e x a m p l e o f a p a r t y submit (Ala. additional computation This to compensation. an had of the defendant; 431 S o . 2 d a t 1 5 4 - 5 5 . 2100507 Thus, t h e supreme c o u r t enter concluded a judgment i n the defendant's I n Ex p a r t e opportunity on remand only remaining to The p r e s e n t issue McGhee's will establish average weekly average yield trial weekly permitting earnings, more Thus, submission of c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r o p i n i o n i n G.A. the trial earnings court's while initial noting another liability of the determine is a computation analogous to court Given accurate earnings. the sought to i n Aldridge. a should I d . a t 155. the i t appears that the submission likely court c a s e i s more l i k e A l d r i d g e i n t h a t t h e f o r the a w a r d o f damages record, favor. Alabama Power, t h e p l a i n t i f f s defendant. the that the t r i a l the evidence of a d d i t i o n a l calculation the trial additional evidence of McGhee's court's the r e l a t i v e l y of meager order evidence W e s t , i n w h i c h we calculation i n the was reversed average evidence weekly on that that the subject. Accordingly, trial court regarding may we take receive this additional t h e i s s u e o f McGhee's computation of the opportunity average to state evidence remand average weekly earnings. weekly earnings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d i s c u s s i o n on t h a t i s s u e i n G.A. 16 on should West. The be We 2100507 deny G.A. West's petition for a writ o f mandamus seeking to p r e v e n t d i s c o v e r y and t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e remand. PETITION DENIED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n Moore, J . , recuses himself. 17 a n d Thomas, J J . , concur. on

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.