Nancy McDuffie v. Medical Center Enterprise

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/14/2012 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110696 Nancy McDuffie v. M e d i c a l Center E n t e r p r i s e Appeal from C o f f e e C i r c u i t (CV-11-12) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On seeking March 2 9 , 2 0 1 1 , Nancy workers' compensation McDuffie benefits filed from a complaint h e r employer, M e d i c a l C e n t e r E n t e r p r i s e ("MCE"), f o r an i n j u r y s h e a l l e g e d she sustained on M a r c h 12, 2 0 1 0 , i n t h e c o u r s e of her 2110696 employment. contained summary MCE filed answer, record i n the an on appeal. judgment, arguing that demonstrate t h a t her i n j u r y arose her employment. McDuffie but that MCE later McDuffie o u t o f and opposed answer that is not moved f o r a failed to had i n the course of summary-judgment motion. On F e b r u a r y 24, the trial j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f MCE. MCE f i l e d a postjudgment motion i n which trial i t argued 2012, that the court entered court's February a summary 24, 2012, summary j u d g m e n t d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 25¬ 5-88, 2012, the detailing the Ala. trial Code court undisputed facts. facts relevant McDuffie's Thereafter, entered McDuffie The 1975. and an i t s legal March judgment conclusions 15, based on those t i m e l y appealed. facts are undisputed. The testimony from d e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t she has b e e n e m p l o y e d as a patient-care attendant, The amended on o r PCA, r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a PCA f o r MCE s i n c e November 2009. a s s i s t s nurses i n performing t h e i r job d u t i e s . Also in 2009, McDuffie began attending Enterprise Community C o l l e g e t o e a r n h e r r e g i s t e r e d - n u r s e ("RN") d e g r e e . 2 2110696 In January 2010, McDuffie was admitted into the p r o g r a m a t W a l l a c e Community C o l l e g e ( " W a l l a c e " ) . Wallace's program, participate students in "clinicals" worked, instructor, The McDuffie under were c o n d u c t e d . students to to i n which the i n the h o s p i t a l r e c o r d does n o t was she how 7:00 a.m. until McDuffie explained that Wallace select from three area hospitals was employed. and nursing a Wallace 12:00 f r e q u e n t l y those convenient f o r her to perform c l i n i c a l s she other of p e r f o r m t h e i r c l i n i c a l s and t h a t she c h o s e MCE which As p a r t o f classes and supervision from indicate attend nursing p.m. clinicals allowed i t s i n which to b e c a u s e i t was a t t h e same p l a c e a t I t i s undisputed t h a t MCE had not p r o v i d e d b e n e f i t s t o pay f o r M c D u f f i e ' s s c h o o l i n g t o become an RN and t h a t the employment a t McDuffie clinicals were n o t connected testified t h e n i g h t s h i f t a t MCE a.m. t h a t on from f r o m 7:00 on M a r c h 12, 2010. b e f o r e 7:00 McDuffie's MCE. March 12, a t t e n d h e r f o u r t h o r f i f t h day o f c l i n i c a l s . 7:00 to a.m. p.m. 2010, on M a r c h 11, 2010, McDuffie t e s t i f i e d to until that shortly she r e q u i r e d t o wear f o r h e r 3 was M c D u f f i e worked on t h e m o r n i n g o f M a r c h 12, 2010, t h e " s c r u b s " she was she changed job with 2110696 MCE into nursing the students hospital. whites, "whites" t o wear According that while Wallace performing o u t a t 7:01 a.m. clinicals in a and s a i d goodbye t o a McDuffie acknowledged t h a t , no f u r t h e r j o b d u t i e s McDuffie requires i t s t o M c D u f f i e , a f t e r she c h a n g e d i n t o h e r she c l o c k e d supervisor. had nursing testified at that point, she t o p e r f o r m as a PCA f o r MCE. out, she p r o c e e d e d t o t h e MCE l o b b y t o meet h e r c l i n i c a l s u p e r v i s o r and the o t h e r n u r s i n g that, after s t u d e n t s were p r e s e n t she clinicals contained vehicle. i n t h e MCE and s e v e r a l o t h e r lobby when she a r r i v e d . reached the lobby, that clocked s t u d e n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n c l i n i c a l s t h a t day. McDuffie agreed that the supervisor start she Wallace and were w a i t i n g McDuffie stated that, to as she r e a l i z e d t h a t she h a d l e f t a f o l d e r materials she McDuffie t e s t i f i e d needed for clinicals i n her t h a t " I d i d s p e a k t o Dr. K e l l e y [ ( t h e c l i n i c a l s s u p e r v i s o r ) ] a n d [ t o l d ] h e r I f o r g o t my f o l d e r i n my c a r , and she t o l d me t o go g e t i t . " In support submitted the of i t s summary-judgment affidavit supervisor f o rWallace. of Sabrina motion, Kelley, the MCE clinicals K e l l e y t e s t i f i e d , among o t h e r that: 4 also things, 2110696 "When Ms. M c D u f f i e r e p o r t e d t o t h e l o b b y a t [ M C E ] s h o r t l y a f t e r 7:00 a.m. on t h e m o r n i n g o f M a r c h 12, 2010, she i m m e d i a t e l y i n f o r m e d me t h a t she h a d f o r g o t t e n h e r n o t e b o o k , w h i c h was i n h e r c a r . I agreed to d e l a y the s t a r t of c l i n i c a l s f o r her to go t o h e r c a r and r e t r i e v e t h e n o t e b o o k . ... " It go i s undisputed that, to her leading vehicle, she a f t e r McDuffie fell on left some s t a i r s the lobby i n the t o t h e p a r k i n g l o t where h e r v e h i c l e M c D u f f i e i s n o t c e r t a i n what c a u s e d h e r f a l l , hallway was and located. she she m i g h t have t r i p p e d on a s t a i r o r on an a n t i - s l i p the h a l l w a y . Before McDuffie broke the compensation trial court, sought t h a t McDuffie's i n j u r y arose d u r i n g the course of her college reaching trial that and was not i t s March 15, court determined the injury employment. In arose to employment. In j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f MCE, the that McDuffie out addition, of the and trial McDuffie had fall caused by a c o n d i t i o n of her was failed p l a c e of b u s i n e s s . connected 2012, t h a t she workers' argued clinicals theory fall. MCE employer's the McDuffie strip in fallen l e a v i n g her under i n that stated had while benefits h e r arm to her failed in court to present evidence 5 the to demonstrate course of concluded indicating employment. her that t h a t her 2110696 With regard judgment, t h i s to the standard c o u r t has for reviewing a summary stated: "'We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de n o v o , a p p l y i n g t h e same s t a n d a r d as was a p p l i e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i s t o be granted when no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r of law. R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. A p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t must make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g " t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " Rule 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The c o u r t must v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y and must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s a g a i n s t t h e movant. H a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2d 412 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . I f t h e movant m e e t s t h i s b u r d e n , " t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o rebut the movant's prima facie showing by ' s u b s t a n t i a l evidence.'" Lee v. C i t y o f Gadsden , 592 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. 1992).'" B a r r e t t v. Lee 2003) B r a s s Co., 883 So. ( q u o t i n g B a i l e y v. R.E. 2d 122, 123 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 227, Garrison summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f MCE. i n j u r y that occurs (Ala. Civ. Trucking Co., 834 App. So. 2002)). McDuffie argues t h a t the t r i a l t h a t an 228 on court erred i n entering a Specifically, she contends t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p r e m i s e s as the e m p l o y e e i s l e a v i n g work can be c o m p e n s a b l e u n d e r t h e W o r k e r s ' Compensation Act 1975. An ("the Act"), § 25-5-1 et seq., i n j u r y i s compensable under the A c t i f the 6 Ala. Code accident 2110696 that caused the employment. injury arose out of and § 2 5 - 5 - 3 1 , A l a . Code 1975. i n the Our course supreme c o u r t has h e l d t h a t " [ a ] n i n j u r y t o an e m p l o y e e a r i s e s i n t h e c o u r s e his employment when i t occurs within employment, a t a p l a c e where he may is reasonably fulfilling the engaged i n d o i n g something States Steel Corp., 264 the period of of his r e a s o n a b l y be and w h i l e he duties of his incident to i t . " A l a . 227, of 230, employment or M a s s e y v. U n i t e d 86 So. 2d 375, 378 (1955). McDuffie premises as maintains she was that leaving i n j u r y i s compensable. the injury work and, occurred on MCE's therefore, that In s u p p o r t of her argument, McDuffie c i t e s M a s s e y , s u p r a , and B r u n s o n v. L u c a s , 5 So. 3d 1274 Civ. App. 2008). In Massey, supra, the evidence the employer's premises to take a cold (Ala. indicated t h a t , a f t e r he c o m p l e t e d h i s work s h i f t , M a s s e y w a l k e d across her quickly shower in a f a c i l i t y owned by t h e e m p l o y e r ; M a s s e y s u f f e r e d an a n e u r y s m as he was use e x i t i n g t h e shower. of the unheated water increased the employee's The court determined after blood a r a p i d w a l k on pressure and d i s e a s e d o r weakened b l o o d v e s s e l w a l l t o b r e a k , " 7 that "[t]he a warm day caused the c a u s i n g the 2110696 aneurysm. trial Massey, court 264 A l a . a t 229, 86 So. 2d a t 377. found t h a t t h e aneurysm was caused by The Massey's employment b u t t h a t i t d i d n o t a r i s e o u t o f t h e employment, and of the employer. i t entered a judgment i n favor Our supreme c o u r t a g r e e d t h a t t h e employment c a u s e d t h e a c c i d e n t , but i t reversed denying that workers' part of compensation the t r i a l benefits. d e t e r m i n e d t h a t M a s s e y was e n t i t l e d aneurysm that entitled Our supreme The c o u r t t o b e n e f i t s because, i n j u r e d , he was "an e m p l o y e e , judgment court t o b e n e f i t s because the a r o s e o u t o f h i s employment. M a s s e y was court's explained when he was while i n the a c t of l e a v i n g h i s e m p l o y e r ' s p r e m i s e s , where h i s s e r v i c e h a s b e e n p e r f o r m e d , a t an appropriate service, time after [who w a s ] e n g a g e d the completion of his actual i n an a c t n a t u r a l l y r e l a t e d a n d incidental t o t h e s e r v i c e o r work w h i c h perform." Massey, he was engaged to 264 A l a . a t 232, 86 So. 2d a t 380. I n B r u n s o n , s u p r a , t h e p l a i n t i f f w o r k e r was i n j u r e d when, as he was c r o s s i n g a s t r e e t t o t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p a r k i n g l o t , he was s t r u c k b y a c o - e m p l o y e e ' s vehicle. This court h e l d that, b e c a u s e he h a d s o u g h t 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 f r o m h i s employer, the i n j u r e d worker could 8 not maintain an action 2110696 a g a i n s t a c o - e m p l o y e e a b s e n t an a l l e g a t i o n o f w i l l f u l on the p a r t of the co-employee. In r e a c h i n g conduct i t s holding on t h a t i s s u e , t h i s c o u r t n o t e d t h a t , " [ i ] n g e n e r a l , an e m p l o y e e is not entitled to workers' compensation i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d w h i l e t r a v e l i n g t o and o f e m p l o y m e n t ; h o w e v e r , one employee to recover exception compensation benefits from h i s or her benefits i f he or employer." Our the B r u n s o n v. L u c a s , 5 So. 2d a t of workers' compensation she is by h i s o r benefits allowing when employee i s t r a v e l i n g t o or from w o r k : " G e n e r a l l y , A l a b a m a l a w has h e l d t h a t i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n a c c i d e n t s t h a t o c c u r w h i l e an e m p l o y e e i s t r a v e l i n g t o and f r o m work a r e n o t c o v e r e d u n d e r t h e A c t b e c a u s e t h o s e i n j u r i e s do n o t meet t h e ' a r i s i n g o u t o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f employment' requirement. See Hughes v. D e c a t u r Gen. Hosp., 514 So. 2d 935 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ; E x c h a n g e D i s t r i b . Co. v. O s l i n , 229 A l a . 547, 158 So. 743 ( 1 9 3 5 ) ; T u c k e r v. D i e - M a t i c T o o l Co., 652 So. 2d 263 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ; W a l k e r v. W h i t e A g e n c i e s , I n c . , 641 So. 2d 795 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; T e r r y v. NTN-Bower C o r p . , 615 So. 2d 629 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992); W i n n - D i x i e S t o r e s , I n c . v. S m a l l w o o d , 516 So. 2d 716 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . A l a b a m a c o u r t s have c a r v e d o u t o n l y a few e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s g e n e r a l r u l e : "'Such e x c e p t i o n s i n c l u d e s i t u a t i o n s where the employer furnishes the employee 9 an 1277. supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d o t h e r e x c e p t i o n s recovery an place to that r u l e permits i n j u r e d w h i l e i n a p a r k i n g l o t owned and m a i n t a i n e d her for an 2110696 t r a n s p o r t a t i o n or r e i m b u r s e s him f o r h i s t r a v e l e x p e n s e s ; where t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r s on t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p r o p e r t y o r on p u b l i c property that is tantamount to the e m p l o y e e ' s i n g r e s s t o and e g r e s s f r o m t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p r o p e r t y ; o r where t h e e m p l o y e e i s i n j u r e d c r o s s i n g a p u b l i c s t r e e t between the main p r e m i s e s o f t h e e m p l o y e r and t h e p a r k i n g l o t owned by t h e e m p l o y e r . ' " T e r r y v. NTN-Bower C o r p . , 615 So. 2d a t 631 (citations omitted). See a l s o Meeks v. Thompson T r a c t o r Co., 686 So. 2d 1213, 1216 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . An a d d i t i o n a l e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e a r i s e s when an e m p l o y e e , d u r i n g h i s t r a v e l t o and f r o m work, i s e n g a g e d i n some d u t y f o r h i s e m p l o y e r t h a t i s i n f u r t h e r a n c e of the employer's b u s i n e s s . See T u c k e r v. D i e - M a t i c T o o l Co., 652 So. 2d a t O /T C 265." S e e T Ex p a r t e S h e l b y C n t y . H e a l t h C a r e A u t h . , 850 (Ala. So. 2d 332, 336 2002). M c D u f f i e a l s o c i t e s Ex p a r t e S t r i c k l a n d , (Ala. injury 1989), as s h o u l d be further support compensable. c o n s t r u c t i o n w o r k e r , was f o r her In that needed Strickland case, f o r work a t t h a t w o r k p l a c e . t h a t i f S t r i c k l a n d were c a l l e d had The 2d 593 that her Strickland, r e q u i r e d t o be on c a l l and remembered he So. argument t o move t o a new w o r k p l a c e on s h o r t n o t i c e . workplace, 553 available After leaving left some t o o l s evidence one he indicated t o a d i f f e r e n t work s i t e n e x t day, h i s e m p l o y e r w o u l d e x p e c t h i m t o have t h o s e 10 a the tools; 2110696 however, S t r i c k l a n d e x p e c t e d w h i c h he l e f t fence and t o work a t t h e same w o r k p l a c e a t h i s t o o l s the next day. Strickland climbed a to reenter the locked workplace to r e t r i e v e the t o o l s , he was i n j u r e d . judgment denying This court affirmed the t r i a l benefits, concluding that court's Strickland had f a i l e d t o demonstrate t h a t h i s i n j u r y arose o u t o f and i n t h e course o f h i s employment. Repair, S t r i c k l a n d v. M a r s h a l l C o n s t r . I n c . , 553 So. 2d 593 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989). & Our supreme c o u r t r e v e r s e d , e x p l a i n i n g : "The p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f S t r i c k l a n d ' s i n j u r y was h i s d e s i r e t o have h i s w o r k b e l t , as w e l l as h i s p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s , a t h a n d s h o u l d he be c a l l e d t o F l o r i d a [ t o w o r k ] on s h o r t n o t i c e . The f a c t t h a t he i n t e n d e d t o be [ a t t h e o r i g i n a l w o r k p l a c e ] t h e next day i s n o t d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f whether S t r i c k l a n d had a w o r k - r e l a t e d o b j e c t i v e when he was i n j u r e d . I n s t e a d , the i n q u i r y i s whether S t r i c k l a n d ' s i n j u r y n a t u r a l l y r e l a t e d t o h i s employment. We d e t e r m i n e t h a t S t r i c k l a n d ' s i n j u r y was n a t u r a l l y r e l a t e d t o h i s employment." Ex p a r t e S t r i c k l a n d , This 553 So. 2d a t 595. c o u r t has r e c e n t l y a d d r e s s e d an a p p e a l i n w h i c h an e m p l o y e e was i n j u r e d w h i l e r e t u r n i n g t o work f r o m t h e e m p l o y e e parking lot. I n Ex p a r t e 2100716, A p r i l 20, 2012] this court held, i n part, Advantage Resourcing, So. 3d that 11 I n c . , [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , an employee's injury was 2110696 c o m p e n s a b l e when he work. had fell and was i n j u r e d as he returned In t h a t case, the e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t the gone to his vehicle in the employee employee parking lot r e t r i e v e a r a d i o n e c e s s a r y f o r h i s employment and t h a t he on h i s way b a c k t o h i s w o r k p l a c e and was injured. to to fell This court concluded " [ t ] h a t t h e f a l l i n t h i s c a s e stemmed f r o m a PVC pipe t h a t had been a l l o w e d to remain i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o a w a l k w a y l e a d i n g t o a shop a t w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e e and h i s c o w o r k e r s were t o r e p o r t f o r work e a c h day and t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s f a l l o c c u r r e d a t a t i m e and p l a c e a t w h i c h he w o u l d r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d t o have r e p o r t e d i n f u r t h e r a n c e of the employment r e l a t i o n s h i p b o t h support the trial court's determination that the employee's fall indeed a r o s e o u t o f and i n the course of his employment." Ex p a r t e A d v a n t a g e R e s o u r c i n g , McDuffie r e l i e s her on argument t h a t her argument, McDuffie exiting the workday while the clinicals o u t o f and foregoing contends h o s p i t a l to taking and, So. 3d a t her go that to her normal she car at 12 the end MCE while of MCE the contends, a r r i v e d to injury i n t h e c o u r s e o f h e r employment. that injured route." t h a t her support In making "was i n j u r e d a f t e r she therefore, . a u t h o r i t i e s to i n j u r y i s compensable. h o w e v e r , t h a t M c D u f f i e was her Inc., d i d not begin arise r e l i e s on the 2110696 a n a l y s i s i n M c M i l l a n v. C o u n t y o f M o b i l e , C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , injury i n support d i d not arise employment. o f i t s argument t h a t out of In that 721 So. 2d 230 ( A l a . case, and McDuffie's i n the course McMillan, a minor, of her sought to recover w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s f o r the death o f h i s father, Tricksey. The e m p l o y e r d e n i e d that the death out of or i n the course was k i l l e d i n an a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t w h i l e t r a v e l i n g t o a t t e n d a college class. Tricksey's subject Although education, the employer p a i d f o r one-half o f and i t d i d n o t s p e c i f y t h a t the h a d t o be r e l a t e d t o T r i c k s e y ' s denied McMillan's claims b e n e f i t s , and t h i s c o u r t a f f i r m e d . this court Tricksey t h e e m p l o y e r h a d no c o n t r o l o v e r t h e of the education, education court o f T r i c k s e y ' s employment. arose job. f o r workers' The compensation In reaching that holding, explained: " P u r s u a n t t o Alabama's w o r k e r s ' compensation law, compensation i s a v a i l a b l e o n l y f o r ' i n j u r i e s by an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t o f a n d i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e employment.' S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 1 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975, d e f i n e s t h a t p h r a s e as f o l l o w s : " ' I N J U R I E S BY AN ACCIDENT A R I S I N G OUT OF AND I N THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT. Without otherwise affecting e i t h e r the meaning o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e c l a u s e , t h e c l a u s e does n o t c o v e r w o r k e r s e x c e p t w h i l e engaged i n o r about t h e p r e m i s e s 13 trial 2110696 where t h e i r s e r v i c e s a r e b e i n g p e r f o r m e d o r where t h e i r s e r v i c e r e q u i r e s t h e i r p r e s e n c e as a p a r t o f s e r v i c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t and d u r i n g t h e h o u r s o f s e r v i c e as workers.' " T h i s c o u r t s e t out the g e n e r a l t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r an i n j u r y a r i s e s o u t o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f employment, i n Cummings T r u c k i n g Co. v. Dean, 628 So. 2d 902, 904 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) : "'To d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an e m p l o y e e ' s i n j u r i e s a r o s e o u t o f h i s employment, i t i s o n l y n e c e s s a r y t o show t h a t t h e employment was the c a u s e and the source of the accident. G o l d K i s t , I n c . v. J o n e s , 537 So. 2d 39 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ; M a s s e y v. U n i t e d S t a t e s S t e e l C o r p . , 264 A l a . 227, 86 So. 2d 375 (1955).' "'Courts i n other j u r i s d i c t i o n s which have p a s s e d upon t h e c o m p e n s a b i l i t y o f i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d o u t s i d e the f o r m a l scope o f t h e e m p l o y e e ' s d u t i e s have e v o l v e d a number o f c r i t e r i a w h i c h may be r e s o r t e d t o i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e employment and the r e c r e a t i o n are r e l a t e d w i t h s u f f i c i e n t c l o s e n e s s t o be h e l d w i t h i n t h e t e r m s o f workmen's compensation acts. For convenience, they were enumerated in M o o r e ' s C a s e , 330 Mass. 1, 110 N.E.2d 764, 766 [ ( 1 9 5 3 ) ] , as f o l l o w s : " ' " ( 1 ) The c u s t o m a r y n a t u r e of the activity (2) The employer's encouragement or s u b s i d i z a t i o n of the a c t i v i t y (3) The extent to which the e m p l o y e r managed o r d i r e c t e d t h e recreational enterprise (4) 14 2110696 The presence of substantial pressure or actual compulsion upon t h e e m p l o y e e t o a t t e n d and participate (5) The f a c t t h a t the e m p l o y e r e x p e c t s o r r e c e i v e s a benefit from the employees' participation i n the activity, whether by way of improved employer-employee relationships, ... ; t h r o u g h g r e a t e r e f f i c i e n c y in the performance of the employees' duties, ... ; by utilizing the recreation as partial compensation or a d d i t i o n a l r e w a r d f o r t h e i r work, or f o r a d v e r t i s i n g the employer's b u s i n e s s , o r as an a c t u a l a d j u n c t of h i s b u s i n e s s A p a r t from the existence of employer compulsion, which often might w a r r a n t or even r e q u i r e a f i n d i n g i n f a v o r of the employee, the p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f any one o f the other f a c t o r s l i s t e d would not necessarily determine the issue. Nor, indeed, i s the f o r e g o i n g e n u m e r a t i o n meant t o be e x c l u s i v e of other f a c t o r s which might appear i n a g i v e n case. What i s r e q u i r e d i n e a c h c a s e i s an e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of each factor found to be present in relation to the e n t e r p r i s e as a w h o l e . Upon s u c h an e v a l u a t i o n must t h e d e c i s i o n as to the closeness of the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e employment and the recreation ultimately rest." (Citations omitted.)' "'[Wooten v. Roden, ] 260 A l a . [606,] 2d [802,] 806 [ ( 1 9 5 4 ) ] . " 15 610-11, 71 So. 2110696 McMillan, because 721 So. 2d a t 231-32. t h e r e was no evidence benefited from continuing Tricksey's his education employment, o r t h a t Tricksey's conclusion a the that his exercised evidence employer that of T r i c k s e y ' s any did arose the that education, requirement T r i c k s e y ' s death McDuffie r e l i e s We furthering was c o u r s e o f h i s employment. her employer's indicating the employer education, that This court concluded control not out of over support and in a the Id. on t h e f a c t t h a t h e r i n j u r y o c c u r r e d on premises a f t e r she f i n i s h e d work f o r t h e day. a g r e e t h a t , i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , s u c h i n j u r i e s may compensable. Brunson v. Lucas, However, i n o r d e r f o r an i n j u r y situation, the employee supra; t o be must have Massey, be supra. compensable i n such been "engaged i n an a act n a t u r a l l y r e l a t e d and i n c i d e n t a l t o t h e s e r v i c e o r work w h i c h he was engaged t o p e r f o r m . " 2d a t 380; ("the see inquiry related to a l s o Ex parte Strickland, i s whether his [or M a s s e y , 264 A l a . a t 232, her] [the employee's] McDuffie's employment is the 16 So. injury employment"). d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r t h e a c c i d e n t was to 553 86 So. 2d a t 595 naturally Relevant to a i n c i d e n t to or r e l a t e d nature of the activity; 2110696 w h e t h e r MCE managed, d i r e c t e d , o r e n c o u r a g e d w h e t h e r i t w o u l d b e n e f i t MCE. 721 So. 2d a t 233. the a c t i v i t y ; or M c M i l l a n v. County o f M o b i l e , McDuffie contends t h a t t h e mere f a c t t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d on t h e way t o t h e p a r k i n g l o t s h o r t l y a f t e r she f i n i s h e d h e r s h i f t a t MCE r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e c o u r t s determine On out h e r i n j u r y t o be c o m p e n s a b l e . t h e m o r n i n g o f M a r c h 12, 2010, M c D u f f i e from h e r s h i f t w o r k i n g hospital for and had proceeded to the lobby to report f o r the beginning of her c l i n i c a l s Wallace. McMillan, I t i s undisputed that, supra, education, that f o r MCE had c l o c k e d MCE to the f a c t s i n d i d not c o n t r i b u t e toward d i d not d i r e c t education, similar and t h e manner i n w h i c h did not benefit McDuffie's she o b t a i n e d by McDuffie's p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c l i n i c a l s i n order to further her education. M c D u f f i e r e a l i z e d t h a t she h a d f o r g o t t e n m a t e r i a l s n e c e s s a r y for the clinicals, clinicals vehicle. of the and she supervisor to retrieve those permission from her m a t e r i a l s from her Thus, MCE made a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e t h a t , a t t h e t i m e her i n j u r y , M c D u f f i e was p u r s u i n g h e r e d u c a t i o n a n d t h a t accident d i d not a r i s e employment obtained out of or i n the course (or the c o m p l e t i o n o f h e r employment). 17 of her 2110696 McDuffie indicating that her t r i p employment. injured, has n o t i d e n t i f i e d McDuffie she would to her v e h i c l e acknowledges have that, retrieved to her h a d she n o t b e e n the m a t e r i a l s clinicals; h e r work d u t i e s f o r MCE were c o m p l e t e agreed and evidence was r e l a t e d from McDuffie vehicle c o u r t any clinicals Also, her to this returned to f o r her rejoin f o r t h e day. t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l s she was s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r f r o m h e r v e h i c l e were r e l a t e d t o h e r c l i n i c a l s . unlike the t h e employee i n S t r i c k l a n d , supra, McDuffie's Thus, injury c a n n o t be s a i d t o be r e l a t e d t o h e r a t t e m p t t o r e t r i e v e w o r k related items. U n l i k e t h e employees i n Brunson, s u p r a , and Massey, supra, McDuffie leave employer's premises after was not attempting completing to the h e r work when she was t h a t , h a d she b e e n l e a v i n g on a "normal" injured. McDuffie argues day, i . e . , one on w h i c h she d i d n o t have c l i n i c a l s , w o u l d l i k e l y be deemed t o be c o m p e n s a b l e . 2010, was clinicals not a "normal" immediately workday her i n j u r y However, M a r c h 12, because f o l l o w i n g h e r work s h i f t . McDuffie had Nothing i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t M c D u f f i e w o u l d have t r a v e l e d t o h e r vehicle until after the completion of her c l i n i c a l s 18 h a d she 2110696 not l e f t the c l i n i c a l s m a t e r i a l s i n her v e h i c l e . McDuffie agreed before the t r i a l court that We n o t e t h a t i f the accident had h a p p e n e d l a t e r i n t h e m o r n i n g , o r a f t e r h e r c l i n i c a l s were c o m p l e t e d , t h e a c c i d e n t w o u l d n o t have b e e n c o m p e n s a b l e . McDuffie bases her argument that her injury is c o m p e n s a b l e on t h e s h o r t l a p s e o f t i m e b e t w e e n h e r l e a v i n g h e r work s h i f t and h e r i n j u r y on MCE's p r e m i s e s . However, The f a c t s h o r t p e r i o d does n o t d e t e r m i n e c o m p e n s a b i l i t y . the distance between M c D u f f i e ' s w h i c h she met w i t h time to t r a v e l others workplace to attend that distance, was that that and t h e l o b b y clinicals, in and t h u s t h e s h o r t does n o t d e f e a t the f a c t t h a t M c D u f f i e h a d l e f t work and h a d begun t o engage i n a different activity, her injury. her clinicals i.e., college c l i n i c a l s , McDuffie testified a t MCE f o r h e r own "[T]he i n q u i r y i s whether r e l a t e d t o [ h e r ] employment." a t 595. that a t the time of she e l e c t e d t o p e r f o r m convenience. [McDuffie's] injury Ex p a r t e S t r i c k l a n d , naturally 553 So. 2d I n t h i s c a s e , M c D u f f i e h a d l e f t h e r employment with MCE and h a d s t a r t e d h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n h e r c l i n i c a l s f o r t h e furtherance of her education. t h a t h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n was See M c M i l l a n , supra. The fact i n t e r r u p t e d a l m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y by 19 2110696 the need t o r e t r i e v e m a t e r i a l s r e l e v a n t t o t h e c l i n i c a l s her vehicle does not a l t e r the conclusion that from McDuffie's l e a v i n g t h e MCE b u i l d i n g t o go t o h e r v e h i c l e h a d no r e l a t i o n t o h e r employment. not needed to T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t , i f she h a d retrieve M c D u f f i e w o u l d have vehicle until undisputed left her materials t h e MCE f o r her clinicals, b u i l d i n g to travel to her of the c l i n i c a l s . I ti s a f t e r the completion t h a t t h e " p r o x i m a t e c a u s e " o f M c D u f f i e ' s i n j u r y was h e r d e s i r e t o have h e r m a t e r i a l s f o r h e r c l i n i c a l s p r o g r a m , Ex parte S t r i c k l a n d , 553 So. 2d a t 595, a n d we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e record contains directed, or other no evidence i n d i c a t i n g that or encouraged McDuffie i n performing college McDuffie's coursework, obtaining h e r RN d e g r e e . Mobile, 721 So. 2d a t 233. appeal that sufficient she presented to create or that MCE managed, her c l i n i c a l s i t would b e n e f i t McMillan from v. County o f M c D u f f i e h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d on evidence to the trial court a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t on t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r h e r a c c i d e n t was r e l a t e d t o h e r employment s o as t o h a v e a r i s e n o u t o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h a t Accordingly, employment. we a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f MCE. 20 2110696 On appeal, McDuffie also erred i n determining t h a t she says, that i t determined fall." However, we judgment by argues that c o u l d not idea have a f f i r m e d t h e trial that "had recover no concluding she the i t correctly trial court because, what she caused court's her summary determined that M c D u f f i e ' s i n j u r y d i d not a r i s e out of or i n the course of employment. McDuffie's pretermit Accordingly, injury any is not because we compensable d i s c u s s i o n o f w h e t h e r she have under was d e m o n s t r a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y what c a u s e d h e r We a f f i r m the t r i a l concluded the that Act, to fall. c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r AFFIRMED. B r y a n , Thomas, and 21 we r e q u i r e d t o have MCE. Pittman, her Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . of

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.