Office Max, Inc. v. Academy, Ltd. (Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court: CV-07-544)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 04/13/2012 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, 2011-2012 2100658 O f f i c e Max, Inc. v. Academy, L t d . 2100659 O f f i c e Max, Inc. v. Sandra Richey Appeals from Etowah C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-544) PITTMAN, J u d g e . O f f i c e Max, I n c . ( " O f f i c e M a x " ) , t h e f o r m e r Sandra Richey ("the e m p l o y e e " ) , seeks review employer o f in these 2100658; 2100659 consolidated Circuit appeals Court in a of two orders single determined t h a t O f f i c e Max benefits to the Compensation Act, civil to jurisdiction The that action employee under A l a . Code the by the in that, Etowah effect, i s solely responsible for providing 1975, A c t " ) , and d i r e c t i n g O f f i c e Max treatment entered the § Alabama 25-5-1 et Workers' seq. to provide p a r t i c u l a r employee. Because as t o e i t h e r a p p e a l , we we lack medical appellate dismiss both appeals. e m p l o y e e f i l e d a c i v i l a c t i o n i n J u l y 2007, her s h o u l d e r s i n 2002 and i n 2005, r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i l e i n t h e line scope award had of her under vocational, which injuries to her employment w i t h O f f i c e the Act medical, she was occasions, suffered of knees alleging to and she ("the Max; and she " a l l compensation, rehabilitation and other sought disability, benefits" e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e f r o m O f f i c e Max. in June 2008, March 2010, and July On to three 2010, the employee r e q u e s t e d the i s s u a n c e of o r d e r s d i r e c t i n g O f f i c e to an Max p r o v i d e her w i t h m e d i c a l care from the t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n a u t h o r i z e d by O f f i c e Max, Dr. W i l l i a m H a r t z o g ; t h e t r i a l court g r a n t e d t h o s e r e q u e s t s o v e r t h e o b j e c t i o n s o f O f f i c e Max. arguments p r e s e n t e d employee's court second received to the request, testimony trial court at a hearing during from 2 the which hearing employee and on the In the trial admitted 2100658; 2100659 v a r i o u s m e d i c a l documents i n t o e v i d e n c e , O f f i c e Max indicated t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had l e f t h e r employment w i t h O f f i c e Max and had Max taken a job Academy, L t d . that contended with that subsequent contributed to such under that, the generally United 712, 715 (Ala. responsible employee's the employment knee and had caused shoulder F i d . & G u a r . Co. App. 1994), f o r p r o v i d i n g b e n e f i t s to the should be So. e m p l o y e e a r g u e d , and the c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y a g r e e d , t h a t Academy c o u l d p r o p e r l y Office Max then i m p l e a d Academy claim against had suffered shoulder as f o r the the trial as a motion, party, and w h i c h was i t asserted granted, a Academy i n w h i c h i t a l l e g e d t h a t a " r e - i n j u r y " or injury and be a t h i r d - p a r t y defendant. filed a 2d employee under In response, O f f i c e Max see deemed Act. j o i n e d by counsel rule, v. S t e p p , 642 Academy or conditions "last-injurious-exposure" States Civ. ("Academy"); O f f i c e that an aggravation Academy, rather third-party the of than to a employee previous Office Max, s h o u l d be h e l d l i a b l e u n d e r t h e A c t as t o b e n e f i t s owed t o the employee w i t h her respect to the injuries she had alleged in complaint. Academy moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n i t s f a v o r on Max's Office injuries the scope of her third-party claim, employee might have contending sustained i n the employment w i t h Academy were m e r e l y 3 that line any and recurrences 2100658; 2100659 of i n j u r i e s originally sustained i n t h e l i n e and e m p l o y e e ' s work f o r O f f i c e Max. O f f i c e Max scope of filed a the response i n o p p o s i t i o n t o Academy's summary-judgment m o t i o n , c o n t e n d i n g that the a genuine i s s u e e m p l o y e e had Academy. seeking The to of m a t e r i a l suffered f a c t e x i s t e d as further employee, f o r her compel m e d i c a l damage w h i l e part, treatment, been d i a g n o s e d w i t h a l e s i o n i n her Max should be condition. filed d i r e c t e d to authorize In s e p a r a t e orders a fourth that knee and surgery entered on whether employed averring left to by motion she had that Office to c o r r e c t that F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d b o t h Academy's summary-judgment m o t i o n and the employee's f o u r t h motion to compel. separate notices of appeal a p p e a l s were c o n s o l i d a t e d As 2004), was noted workers' accordance with i n Ex and as (quoting A l a . Code 1975, Procedure Rule govern shall parte civil be to this those court Vance, compensation statutes Vance a l s o by as 54(b), applicable Ala. R. That r u l e p r o v i d e s , Civ. orders, and 900 So. 2d "'shall g o v e r n e d by the 394 (Ala. in same r u l e s and 900 So. § 25-5-88). The court 2d at 398 n.7 i n Ex parte Alabama R u l e s of Civil i n workers' compensation applies those proceed actions.'" P., filed ex mero motu. actions reasoned t h a t because the are O f f i c e Max actions, i n such a c t i o n s . Id. i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t " [ w ] h e n more t h a n 4 2100658; 2100659 one claim f o rr e l i e f claim that a trial there express i s no direction a ruling c o u r t must make an e x p r e s s just reason that a f i n a l that a final, In f o r delay appealable determination a n d must j u d g m e n t be e n t e r e d " a d j u d i c a t e s fewer than the r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s be i n an a c t i o n , w h e t h e r as a ... o r t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m , o r when m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s a r e involved," for i s presented o f fewer than make an i n order a l l the claims or a l l the p a r t i e s " to judgment. t h i s c a s e , we have no s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n or d i r e c t i o n as t o e i t h e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r s f r o m w h i c h O f f i c e Max has appealed. 1 Further, because the workers' compensation c l a i m o f t h e e m p l o y e e a g a i n s t O f f i c e Max r e m a i n s p e n d i n g i n the trial fewer than court, the t r i a l court's orders a l l the controverted claims. have adjudicated On t h e a u t h o r i t y o f W a r r e n v . W e s t e r , 796 So. 2d 377, 379 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , and Bryant (Ala. v. F l a g s t a r E n t e r s . , I n c . , 717 So. 2d 400, 401-02 C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , we c o n c l u d e that the t r i a l c o u r t has As was a l s o n o t e d i n Ex p a r t e V a n c e , " ' [ c ] e r t i f i c a t i o n s u n d e r R u l e 5 4 ( b ) s h o u l d be e n t e r e d o n l y i n e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s and s h o u l d n o t be e n t e r e d r o u t i n e l y . ' " 900 So. 2d a t 398 ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v. L a w h o r n , 830 So. 2d 720, 725 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . 1 5 2 1 0 0 6 5 8 ; 2100659 not entered appeals. The a final judgment t h a t w i l l support O f f i c e Max's 2 appeals are dismissed. h o w e v e r , we n o t e t h a t In d i s m i s s i n g the appeals, (a) u n d e r R u l e 54(b), the t r i a l court r e t a i n s t h e power t o r e v i s e i t s o r d e r s a t a n y t i m e b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t ; a n d (b) u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 25¬ 5-88, of the t r i a l fact c o u r t h a s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o make f i n d i n g s and s t a t e determinations respective conclusions concerning o f law i n making the merits of the its final parties' contentions. 2100658 APPEAL DISMISSED. 2100659 APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, J . , concur. We n o t e t h a t O f f i c e Max h a s i n c l u d e d a s t a t e m e n t i n i t s b r i e f r e q u e s t i n g t h i s c o u r t , i f i t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t no f i n a l j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n e n t e r e d , t o t r e a t i t s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f as a mandamus p e t i t i o n . We d e c l i n e O f f i c e Max's r e q u e s t . As t o t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g Academy's summary-judgment m o t i o n , mandamus w i l l n o t l i e as a m a t t e r o f l a w . See Ex p a r t e Showers, 812 So. 2d 277, 281 ( A l a . 2001) ( h o l d i n g t h a t , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of summary-judgment m o t i o n s b a s e d on sovereign-immunity issues, a p p e l l a t e courts " w i l l not review the merits of a summary-judgment m o t i o n t h r o u g h a w r i t o f mandamus"). As t o t h e o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t , we n o t e t h a t O f f i c e Max's c o r e c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t e i t h e r i t o r Academy w i l l u l t i m a t e l y be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r f u r t h e r m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t ; t h u s , u n l i k e t h e l i t i g a t i o n p o s t u r e p r e s e n t i n Ex p a r t e Cowabunga, I n c . , 67 So. 3d 136 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , w h i c h i n v o l v e d o n l y t h e employer and t h e employee, a p r o p e r appeal by O f f i c e Max f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t a d d r e s s i n g Academy's r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w i l l s e r v e as an a d e q u a t e remedy. 2 6 2100658; 2100659 Moore, J., dissents, with joins. 7 writing, which Thomas, J . , 2100658; 2100659 MOORE, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . As parte I explained Cowabunga, at length 67 Inc., i n my 3d So. special writing 141 (Ala. Civ. App. an a p p e a l l i e s from 136, 2 0 1 1 ) , u n d e r § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, in Ex any o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t d e c i d i n g a c o n t r o v e r s y u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a Workers' Compensation Act Code 1975, regardless standards. and 67 So. ("the of its ("the among O f f i c e Max, regarding trial "finality" under civil-law 3d a t 141-42 (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t dissenting in part). Court A c t " ) , § 25-5-1 e t s e q . , A l a . court") Inc., In t h i s case, the Etowah c o n c l u s i v e l y decided a Academy, Sandra Ltd., t h e payment o f c e r t a i n m e d i c a l and Circuit controversy Richey b e n e f i t s sought by R i c h e y by e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Academy and by the entering an order r e q u i r i n g O f f i c e Max requested medical treatment. O f f i c e Max to provide appeals those orders, and t h e m a j o r i t y d i s m i s s e s t h o s e a p p e a l s b e c a u s e t h e o r d e r s not completely however, orders workers' § resolve Richey's 25-5-81(e) that do not workers' allows appeals completely compensation c l a i m . do compensation c l a i m ; from resolve "interlocutory" a l l aspects of a Ex p a r t e Cowabunga, 67 So. 3d a t 142. In supreme Ex parte court Vance, held that 900 a So. trial 8 2d 394 court (Ala. i s not 2004), our required to 2100658; 2100659 certify a workers' retaliatorycourt discharge claim d i d not consider " n o n f i n a l " workers' that compensation that issue judgment remains whether as final pending; an a p p e a l when a however, t h e would l i e from a compensation judgment because i t appears was not raised. In i t s d i s c u s s i o n , the supreme c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t , " w i t h t h e n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n s found i n §§ 25-5-81 a n d 25-5-88, [ A l a . Code 1975,] t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s of C i v i l Procedure apply t o workers' So. 2d a t 398 n.7 5-88, A l a . Code compensation cases." (emphasis added). 1975, make 900 S e c t i o n s 25-5-81 a n d 25¬ any determination of "a controversy" r e g a r d i n g t h e payment o f b e n e f i t s u n d e r t h e A c t "'conclusive and b i n d i n g between the p a r t i e s ' " and p r o v i d e t h a t an a p p e a l may be t a k e n w i t h i n 42 d a y s f r o m "'an o r d e r o r judgment'" containing such a determination. s e c t i o n s do n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e o r d e r Those Code o r j u d g m e n t be final u n d e r t h e r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e o r o t h e r s t a t e l a w . See Ex p a r t e Cowabunga, 67 So. 3d a t 141-42 (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) . mandate t h a t t h i s The extensive trial court dismiss these court complied findings of fact summary-judgment conclusions Thus, Ex p a r t e V a n c e does n o t order. of law support with appeals. § 25-5-88 and c o n c l u s i o n s Those same the t r i a l 9 by entering of law i n findings of fact court's order i t s and granting 2100658; 2100659 Richey's "motion t o compel m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t , " and t h e c o u r t h a d no n e e d t o d u p l i c a t e them i n t h a t o r d e r . trial Therefore, I conclude t h a t t h i s court should consider the m e r i t s of these appeals. Because the majority respectfully dissent. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . 10 dismisses the appeals, I

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.