CVS/Caremark Corporation v. Gloria Washington

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/15/2013 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, 2012-2013 2110185 CVS/Caremark C o r p o r a t i o n v. Gloria Washington Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-09-902720) Court PER CURIAM. CVS/Caremark C o r p o r a t i o n ("CVS") a p p e a l s from a judgment awarding G l o r i a Washington 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 u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a 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 e t s e q . , Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 ("the A c t " ) . We a f f i r m . 2110185 W a s h i n g t o n was e m p l o y e d as a p a c k e r and shipper m a i l - o r d e r - p h a r m a c y w a r e h o u s e f r o m 2002 t o 2010. i n CVS's In F e b r u a r y 2008, W a s h i n g t o n i n j u r e d h e r r i g h t s h o u l d e r when she f e l l a pallet jack in the CVS warehouse. Following over shoulder s u r g e r y and a p e r i o d o f r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n r e t u r n e d work in September accommodations. shoulder and 2008 She with light-duty continued to restrictions experience neck, however; t y p i c a l l y , e a r l y o r m i s s e d work a l t o g e t h e r two she either or t h r e e I n A u g u s t 2009, W a s h i n g t o n f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t under the Act In A p r i l f o r a permanent t o t a l 2010, pain to and in her left work d a y s e a c h week. seeking benefits disability. Washington's p h y s i c i a n changed her work r e s t r i c t i o n s from l i g h t duty to "sedentary work o n l y , w i t h no pushing or p u l l i n g the arm, no reaching above t h e and no repetitive motion over zero shoulder with pounds w i t h level the on the right right right arm." In W a s h i n g t o n i n f o r m e d h e r s u p e r v i s o r t h a t she was t o q u i t work b e c a u s e she i n constant the pain. warehouse encouraged her was to c o u l d not lift stay to until close that 2 July going anything Washington's s u p e r v i s o r scheduled side, and t o have she informed her i n October time 2010, so that 2010 she was that and could 2110185 receive 2010, severance pay. Washington worked u n t i l when t h e CVS m a i l - o r d e r - p h a r m a c y w a r e h o u s e The c a s e was t r i e d parties' i n J u l y 2 0 1 1 , b a s e d p r i m a r i l y on t h e testimony of vocational experts W a s h i n g t o n was t h e s o l e l i v e w i t n e s s . M. Long, J r . , stated that, capacity evaluation disability reported, u n a b l e t o work. Long f o r both p a r t i e s . i f Washington's she w o u l d o f 55 t o 60 p e r c e n t . Washington completely ("FCE"), and t h e Her v o c a t i o n a l c o n t r o l l e d s o t h a t she c o u l d work a c c o r d i n g level closed. s t i p u l a t i o n s , Washington's medical records, deposition John O c t o b e r 29, Russ G u r l e y , pain were to her f u n c t i o n a l have a However, w i t h opined expert, that vocational pain at the Washington the vocational was expert r e t a i n e d b y CVS, s t a t e d : " B a s e d on t h e a b i l i t y t o work full¬ t i m e a t t h e l e v e l s recommended by t h e FCE a n d by [ h e r t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n s ] , c o n s i d e r i n g Ms. W a s h i n g t o n ' s d e m o n s t r a t e d a b i l i t y to perform l i g h t surgery, d u t y work f o r two y e a r s a f t e r h e r shoulder a n d c o n s i d e r i n g l o s s o f a c c e s s t o j o b s a n d wage l o s s , Ms. W a s h i n g t o n h a s a v o c a t i o n a l d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g o f 40 t o 50 percent." At has the time a t t r i a l , an 11th-grade W a s h i n g t o n was 54 y e a r s o l d . She education b u t does 3 n o t have a general 2110185 equivalency diploma. by H e a l t h T e x , years. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d been e m p l o y e d a manufacturer of c h i l d r e n ' s A f t e r the HealthTex p l a n t f o r 25 c l o s e d i n 2001, W a s h i n g t o n drew u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s went t o work f o r CVS. clothing, f o r a y e a r and then A f t e r t h e CVS w a r e h o u s e c l o s e d i n 2010, W a s h i n g t o n n e i t h e r w o r k e d n o r s o u g h t work b e c a u s e , she said, t h e p a i n i n h e r n e c k and s h o u l d e r p r e v e n t e d h e r f r o m w o r k i n g . She stated household that the pain chores a l s o p r e v e n t e d her from doing and t h a t she "sit[s] a t home, w a t c h i n g her TV mostly." W a s h i n g t o n a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she h a d a p p l i e d f o r and h a d been r e c e i v i n g u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s o f $238 p e r week s i n c e O c t o b e r 2010, when t h e CVS that she had benefits. application weekly at length for Social for and about the receipt and h e r c l a i m t h a t disabled. receive applied Security closed, and disability C o u n s e l f o r CVS, w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n , c r o s s - e x a m i n e d Washington benefits also warehouse inconsistency of she was Washington s t a t e d that, recertification 4 her unemployment-compensation p e r m a n e n t l y and i n order unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s , on-line between of her totally to continue to she c o m p l e t e s a eligibility f o r the 2110185 b e n e f i t s b y a n s w e r i n g q u e s t i o n s on a c o m p u t e r f o r m p r o v i d e d b y the Department o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Washington testified that she had q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r she was ("DIR"). responded Initially, 1 to " m e n t a l l y and the DIR physically a b l e t o work" and " a v a i l a b l e f o r and s e e k i n g work i n A l a b a m a " b y a n s w e r i n g "no," b e c a u s e , she s a i d , she was n e i t h e r a b l e t o work, nor available for work, nor seeking work. 2 She On O c t o b e r 1, 2012, t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s merged w i t h t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r . The c o m b i n e d d e p a r t m e n t s a r e now known as t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t of Labor. 1 2 S e c t i o n 25-4-77, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t part: " ( a ) An u n e m p l o y e d i n d i v i d u a l s h a l l be e l i g i b l e to r e c e i v e [unemployment-compensation] b e n e f i t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o any week i n a b e n e f i t y e a r w h i c h b e g i n s on o r a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, 1989, o n l y i f t h e d i r e c t o r finds that: " "(3) He i s p h y s i c a l l y and m e n t a l l y a b l e t o p e r f o r m work o f a c h a r a c t e r w h i c h he i s qualified t o p e r f o r m by past e x p e r i e n c e o r t r a i n i n g , and he i s a v a i l a b l e f o r s u c h work .... " "(5) He has made a r e a s o n a b l e a c t i v e e f f o r t t o s e c u r e work " 5 and 2110185 maintained that, despite receive benefits s u c h a n s w e r s , she h a d " c o n t i n u e d t o anyway." however, t h e f o l l o w i n g During further cross-examination, occurred: "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r C V S ] : I n o r d e r t o r e c e i v e u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s , you must be a b l e t o work. A r e you a b l e t o w o r k ? "A. [By W a s h i n g t o n ] : No. "Q. Have you t o l d able t o work? the State o f Alabama "A. No. "Q. As f a r as t h e y know, you a r e a b l e "A. you're not Yes." Washington Security pending. also testified disability that benefits she and had that t o work? applied her for Social application C o u n s e l f o r CVS q u e s t i o n e d h e r f u r t h e r : "Q. And when you disability benefits, unable t o work? "A. Y e s , s i r , I'm applied for Social Security a r e you c l a i m i n g t h a t you a r e unable. "Q. So you u n d e r s t a n d y o u ' r e t e l l i n g t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a t h a t y o u ' r e a b l e t o work, and y o u ' r e t e l l i n g t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t y o u ' r e u n a b l e t o work. I s t h a t your u n d e r s t a n d i n g ? "A. Y e s . (Emphasis added.) 6 was 2110185 "Q. A n d y o u ' r e g o i n g t o c o n t i n u e t o make a for S o c i a l Security d i s a b i l i t y a f t e r today? "A. I'm n o t claim I c a n ' t work. "Q. Okay. A n d y o u ' r e g o i n g t o c o n t i n u e t o r e c e i v e unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n f r o m t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a as l o n g as y o u can? "A. Y e s . " In a supplemental posttrial Washington's application compensation benefits brief, CVS f o r and r e c e i p t was i n c o n s i s t e n t argued that o f unemployment- with h e r permanent- t o t a l - d i s a b i l i t y c l a i m and t h a t h e r p e r m a n e n t - t o t a l - d i s a b i l i t y claim was, t h e r e f o r e , estoppel. entered 3 barred by t h e d o c t r i n e On A u g u s t 19, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l a judgment containing court the following of judicial r e n d e r e d and conclusions of law: "The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t [Washington] i s p e r m a n e n t l y and t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d f r o m g a i n f u l employment as a r e s u l t o f t h e s u b j e c t o n - t h e - j o b - i n j u r y . The c o u r t notes that [Washington] a p p l i e d f o r and r e c e i v e d unemployment b e n e f i t s f o l l o w i n g h e r employment w i t h CVS. W h i l e t h e c o u r t c e r t a i n l y does n o t condone h e r actions i n that regard, the Court finds that Washington's claim f o r permanent and total I n W h i t e T i g e r G r a p h i c s , I n c . v. C l e m o n s , 88 So. 3d 908, 911 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , t h i s c o u r t n o t e d t h a t " [ j ] u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l may a p p l y t o s t a t e m e n t s p r e v i o u s l y made i n b o t h j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s a n d q u a s i - j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s " s u c h as contested a d m i n i s t r a t i v e cases. 3 7 2110185 d i s a b i l i t y i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . The c o u r t f u r t h e r n o t e s t h a t t h e r e i s no p r o v i s i o n under Alabama's Workers' Compensation Act that prohibits a plaintiff from pursuing workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s i f [she h a s ] a p p l i e d f o r and received unemployment compensation. Florence E n a m e l i n g Co. v. J o n e s , 361 So. 2d 564 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . " CVS f i l e d a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , (a) a s s e r t i n g estoppel as insisted, had complaining an affirmative been that defense p r e s e n t e d and the trial court (which judicial defense, CVS (b) litigated at trial), had no findings made or c o n c l u s i o n s r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e j u d i c i a l - e s t o p p e l i s s u e , and (c) a t t e m p t i n g t o d i s t i n g u i s h F l o r e n c e E n a m e l i n g Co. v. J o n e s , 361 So. 2d 564 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , t h e d e c i s i o n upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t had r e l i e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t Washington's r e c e i p t o f unemployment-compensation being awarded b e n e f i t s d i d not p r o h i b i t her from permanent-total-disability benefits under the Act. W a s h i n g t o n moved t o s t r i k e t h e j u d i c i a l - e s t o p p e l d e f e n s e , a r g u i n g t h a t CVS h a d w a i v e d t h a t d e f e n s e by f a i l i n g t o a s s e r t it i n i t s answer or other responsive pleading. Following h e a r i n g at which the p a r t i e s ' c o u n s e l p r e s e n t e d o r a l the trial a argument, c o u r t r e n d e r e d and e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g CVS's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and g r a n t i n g W a s h i n g t o n ' s m o t i o n t o s t r i k e 8 2110185 the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l . addressed the The trial j u d i c i a l - e s t o p p e l i s s u e as f o l l o w s : "The court specifically addressed the evidence regarding t h e unemployment b e n e f i t s r e c e i v e d by [Washington] i n i t s o r d e r , n o t i n g t h a t w h i l e the c o u r t d i d n o t condone [ W a s h i n g t o n ' s ] c o n d u c t i n t h a t r e g a r d , s u c h e v i d e n c e was o n l y one p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e considering [Washington's] c l a i m f o r disability. The court noted further that there was other competent and s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supporting [Washington's] claim of permanent and total d i s a b i l i t y , most o f w h i c h was undisputed. "From a j u d i c i a l - e s t o p p e l p e r s p e c t i v e , w h i l e i t i s t r u e t h a t [Washington] r e p r e s e n t e d t o the s t a t e f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a t she was, in effect, w i l l i n g and a b l e t o do some t y p e o f work i n o r d e r t o r e c e i v e those [unemployment-compensation] b e n e f i t s , the court again notes that there was other substantial, competent, and mostly undisputed e v i d e n c e t h a t s u p p o r t s h e r c l a i m f o r p e r m a n e n t and t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y when a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i s v i e w e d and weighed i n i t s t o t a l i t y . "The court also considered [Washington's] o b j e c t i o n / m o t i o n to s t r i k e a f f i r m a t i v e defense of judicial estoppel. Affirmative defenses are r e q u i r e d t o be s p e c i a l l y [ p l e a d e d ] i n an a n s w e r o r other responsive pleading. R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. However, R u l e 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a l l o w s f o r s u c h amendments t o c o n f o r m w i t h t h e p l e a d i n g s . In t h i s case, defense c o u n s e l c l a i m s t h a t they d i d not p l e a d the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l i n t h e i r answer o r a r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g b e c a u s e t h e y were unaware t h a t [ W a s h i n g t o n ] had a p p l i e d f o r and r e c e i v e d unemployment b e n e f i t s f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e f o l l o w i n g h e r j o b e n d i n g w i t h [CVS], u n t i l she t e s t i f i e d i n that regard at t r i a l . The c o u r t t a k e s j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h e f a c t t h a t when an e m p l o y e e makes a c l a i m f o r s u c h b e n e f i t s , t h e e m p l o y e r i s 9 court 2110185 i m m e d i a t e l y n o t i f i e d o f t h e c l a i m by t h e s t a t e i n order f o r the employer t o o b j e c t t o t h e c l a i m . T h e r e f o r e , [CVS] s h o u l d have h a d p r i o r knowledge o f the claim long before t r i a l that would have t r i g g e r e d a d u t y t o amend t h e a n s w e r t o p l e a d t h i s a f f i r m a t i v e defense. " [ C ] o u n s e l [ f o r CVS] f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e y made a r e q u e s t f o r s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n o f [ W a s h i n g t o n ' s ] d i s c o v e r y i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 , w h i c h s h o u l d have c a u s e d [ W a s h i n g t o n ] , t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , t o i n f o r m [CVS] o f the unemployment c l a i m . However, a r e v i e w o f t h e r e q u e s t r e v e a l s t h a t [CVS] was r e q u e s t i n g documents i n [Washington's] p o s s e s s i o n e v i d e n c i n g a p p l i c a t i o n and s u p p o r t i n g documents a n d m a t e r i a l s s u b m i t t e d t o or r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e A l a b a m a [ D i r e c t o r o f I n d u s t r i a l Relations] supporting f i n a l determinations of b e n e f i t s t o [ W a s h i n g t o n ] , t o w h i c h she r e s p o n d e d : '[Washington] i s n o t i n p o s s e s s i o n o f any s u c h d o c u m e n t s . ' T h e r e i s no r e a s o n n o t t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s was an a c c u r a t e a n d t r u t h f u l r e s p o n s e as [Washington] testified that she did a l l applications, e t c . 'on-line.' "For t h e r e a s o n s a d d r e s s e d above c o n c e r n i n g t h e evidence of application f o r and receipt of unemployment b e n e f i t s , t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d the e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t i t s h o u l d have b e e n one piece of the t o t a l i t y of the evidence concerning [Washington's] claim f o r permanent and total disability. "Having considered the o r a l and written arguments of counsel, i t i s hereby ordered, a d j u d g e d , a n d d e c r e e d t h a t [CVS's] m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e i s h e r e b y d e n i e d . [ W a s h i n g t o n ' s ] objection/motion t o s t r i k e a f f i r m a t i v e defense of j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l i s hereby s u s t a i n e d / g r a n t e d . " CVS t i m e l y a p p e a l e d , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l in striking court i t s j u d i c i a l - e s t o p p e l d e f e n s e and i n s i s t i n g 10 erred that 2110185 W a s h i n g t o n ' s c l a i m f o r 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 was barred by the d o c t r i n e alternative, disability of judicial arguing that the t r i a l determination i s not estoppel and, i n the court's permanent-totalsupported by substantial evidence. Standard Our review of t h i s case o f Review i s g o v e r n e d by t h e A c t , w h i c h s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "In reviewing the standard of proof ... and o t h e r Appeals legal issues, s h a l l be w i t h o u t a p r e s u m p t i o n Code 1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) ( 1 ) . Inc., 680 So. 2d 262, 268 findings of fact, be review reversed evidence." evidence i f that proved.'" of ( A l a . 1996) . weight Indus., "In reviewing i s supported such Civil of c o r r e c t n e s s . " A l a . pure court s h a l l not by 1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) ( 2 ) . i s "'evidence of See a l s o Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y finding A l a . Code infer the Court the f i n d i n g of the c i r c u i t fair-minded persons reasonably by and substantial Substantial quality that i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment c a n the existence of Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y I n d u s . , West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e Assurance 11 the fact sought to be 680 So. 2d a t 268 ( q u o t i n g Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 2110185 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989), and citing § 12-21-12(d), Ala. Code 1975). Discussion Judicial "'The a Estoppel d o c t r i n e of j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l party from assuming a position "applies to in a legal i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h one p r e v i o u s l y a s s e r t e d . " ' " Alabama Bank, 883 So. J i n r i g h t v. P a u l k , 758 2d So. 1236, 1241 2d 553, 555 t u r n Selma F o u n d r y & S u p p l y Co. 598 So. Freight, Cir. 2d 844, Inc. 846 v. United Jersey proceeding Ex p a r t e 2003) First (quoting ( A l a . 2000), q u o t i n g i n P e o p l e s Bank & T r u s t ( A l a . 1992), q u o t i n g Bank, Co., i n t u r n Oneida Motor 848 F.2d 414, 419 (3d 3d 908, 1988)). In White T i g e r G r a p h i c s , 911 v. (Ala. preclude ( A l a . C i v . App. I n c . v. C l e m o n s , 88 So. 2012), a m a j o r i t y of t h i s c o u r t i n d i c a t e d i t s w i l l i n g n e s s to apply the d o c t r i n e of j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l i n an a p p r o p r i a t e w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n c a s e . t h a t one who r e c e i v e s unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s and the later claims t o be same period has positions. We n o t e d , h o w e v e r , p e r m a n e n t l y and not totally necessarily disabled for asserted inconsistent C i t i n g P r o f e s s o r L a r s o n ' s t r e a t i s e , we 12 explained: 2110185 " P r o f e s s o r s A r t h u r L a r s o n a n d L e x K. L a r s o n have d i s c u s s e d w h e t h e r a c l a i m t h a t one i s w i l l i n g a n d able t o work i s totally inconsistent with a s u b s e q u e n t c l a i m t h a t one i s p e r m a n e n t l y a n d t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d f o r t h e same p e r i o d : " ' S e v e r a l c a s e s have a p p e a r e d i n w h i c h w o r k e r s have a p p l i e d f o r and r e c e i v e d unemployment b e n e f i t s on t h e s t r e n g t h o f their representation that they were p h y s i c a l l y a v a i l a b l e f o r work, a n d l a t e r have a p p l i e d f o r w o r k e r ' s compensation b e n e f i t s on t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e y were t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d d u r i n g t h e same p e r i o d . A t f i r s t g l a n c e t h e two p o s i t i o n s may a p p e a r mutually exclusive; but the inconsistency disappears when t h e s p e c i a l m e a n i n g o f disability i n worker's compensation i s remembered, i n v o l v i n g ... t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f some p h y s i c a l c a p a c i t y f o r work w h i c h i s t h w a r t e d by t h e i n a b i l i t y t o g e t a j o b f o r p h y s i c a l reasons. Thus, the i n j u r e d claimant may h onestly rep re sen t to th e [ u n e m p l o y m e n t - b e n e f i t s ] o f f i c e t h a t he o r she i s a b l e t o do some work, a n d w i t h e q u a l honesty t e l l the [ t r i a l court i n a workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n c a s e ] l a t e r t h a t he o r she was t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d d u r i n g t h e same p e r i o d s i n c e , d e s p i t e b e i n g c a p a b l e o f d o i n g some k i n d s o f work, no one w o u l d o f f e r a j o b because of the claimant's physical h a n d i c a p s . Whether such a d o u b l e r e c o v e r y o f b e n e f i t s s h o u l d be t o l e r a t e d i n v i e w o f t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t r e a t i n g a l l segments of the s o c i a l insurance pattern as a c o o r d i n a t e d whole i s another q u e s t i o n ; t h e p o i n t h e r e i s t h a t t h e c o u r t s do n o t f e e l it t o be t h e i r d u t y t o r u l e o u t an otherwise proved case o f d i s a b i l i t y because II I 13 2110185 of this type of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n an unemployment i n s u r a n c e a p p l i c a t i o n . ' "4 A r t h u r Larson a n d L e x K. L a r s o n , W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n Law § 84.05 (2006) omitted)." 88 So. 3d claimant estoppel a t 912. I n C l e m o n s , was not precluded from seeking held the doctrine that of the judicial a s s e r t e d t o DIR t h a t he was a b l e t h e same p e r i o d . because the c l a i m a n t , court b e n e f i t s under t h e A c t f o r a permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y a f t e r having t o work d u r i n g by this Larson's (footnote We r e a c h e d t h a t conclusion Clemons, " t e s t i f i e d t h a t he ' f e l t l i k e [he] was a b l e t o work' a t t h e t i m e he r e c e i v e d u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n benefits. Clemons t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a s t r i e d t o f i n d work b u t h a s b e e n u n a b l e t o f i n d any work t h a t he c a n do. Clemons f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i f he c o u l d f i n d a j o b , he w o u l d g i v e i t h i s ' b e s t s h o t . ' " 88 So. 3d a t 912. I n c o n t r a s t t o C l e m o n s , W a s h i n g t o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was not able t o work, t h a t she was n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r work, a n d t h a t she h a d n o t s o u g h t work a f t e r t h e CVS w a r e h o u s e The trial represented to court's contrary finding that Washington had t o DIR " t h a t she was, i n e f f e c t , w i l l i n g do some t y p e compensation] o f work benefits" i n order to receive h a s no s u p p o r t 14 closed. and a b l e [unemployment- i n the evidence. 2110185 Washington admitted at DIR her having trial a b i l i t y t o work, h e r sought work. Thus, that by her had misrepresented a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r work, and the a p p e a r t o mandate t h e c o n c l u s i o n estopped, she rationale i n Clemons to DIR, from it waived the h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e we i n i t s answer or a n o t h e r r e s p o n s i v e Caterpillar We do are c o n v i n c e d j u d i c i a l - e s t o p p e l d e f e n s e by J u d i c i a l estoppel would receiving 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 the A c t . CVS her t h a t Washington i s j u d i c i a l l y representations reach that conclusion, to f a i l i n g to not that assert pleading. i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , M i d d l e t o n v. Indus., Inc., 979 So. 2d 53, 57 (Ala. 2007), and " f a i l u r e to p l e a d the defense t y p i c a l l y c o n s t i t u t e s a w a i v e r , " W h i t e T i g e r G r a p h i c s , I n c . v. C l e m o n s , 88 So. argues that i t did j u d i c i a l estoppel of the p a r t i e s . issues not not waive because the the r a i s e d by the affirmative i s s u e was R u l e 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. pleadings 3d a t 910. t r i e d by C i v . P., are i m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e y s h a l l be respects as i f t h e y had been r a i s e d i n the defense the by "When express or treated in a l l pleadings." "The d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r t h e i s s u e has b e e n t r i e d by e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c o n s e n t i s a m a t t e r w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n and w i l l n o t be reversed e x c e p t upon a s h o w i n g [ t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t acted 15 of consent provides: tried CVS 2110185 6A C h a r l e s Federal Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e : C i v i l & Mary Kay § 1493 a t 46-47 Kane, (2010). 4 " [ I ] m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s can be i n f e r r e d f r o m an opposing party's f a i l u r e to object to i n t r o d u c t i o n of evidence raising Assocs., the disputed I n c . v. Adams, (emphasis added). the issue i n i t i a l l y . " introduction 613 So. 2d 1207, An o p p o s i n g p a r t y ' s of evidence I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rehab. raising 1213 failure ( A l a . 1992) to object an u n p l e a d e d defense permits, b u t does n o t r e q u i r e , t h e i n f e r e n c e opposing party has disputed issue. impliedly consented to claim that the litigate with evidence s u p p o r t s a p l e a d e d c l a i m o r d e f e n s e , s e e , e.g., U n i t e d r e l . Modern E l e c . , 240, (D.C. C i r . 1996) quasi-contractual We 4 15(b) or the T h a t i s so b e c a u s e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u p p o r t s an unpleaded c l a i m or defense often overlaps ex to I n c . v. I d e a l E l e c . that States S e c . Co., 81 F.3d (evidence r e l a t e d t o unpleaded c l a i m of unjust enrichment note t h a t Rule 15(b), was also relevant to A l a . R. C i v . P., Thus,i m we a r f iin n i s s il d t t o our Rule u s e f u l i n our a n a l y s i s of t h i s i s s u e . 16 2110185 p l e a d e d c l a i m o f quantum m e r u i t b a s e d on c o n t r a c t i m p l i e d i n fact). failure who T h e r e f o r e , c o n s e n t s h o u l d n o t be 5 to object introduced issue," "absent a c l e a r the e v i d e n c e was International T r u c k and R.V. inferred indication that the attempting to Harvester Credit Corp. S a l e s , I n c . , 547 F.2d 888, 890 from raise v. (5th C i r . and t h a t t h e r e l e v a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o t h e new party a East the new Coast 1977), issue was failure to o b j e c t can be deemed t o i n d i c a t e an i n t e n t t o l i t i g a t e t h e new reasonably apparent to the opposing party whose i s s u e , see N i c h o l l s v. T u f e n k i a n I m p o r t / E x p o r t V e n t u r e s , I n c . , 367 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (although defendant c o p y r i g h t - i n f r i n g e m e n t a c t i o n d i d not a s s e r t the defense the of independent issue was tried by creation the in affirmative i n his responsive pleading, consent of the p a r t i e s because M c C o l l u m v. R e e v e s , 521 So. 2d 13, 17 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , i s often cited i n this context. See I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rehab. A s s o c s . , I n c . v. Adams, 613 So. 2d a t 1214; W a t k i n s v. C e n t r a l C o n t r a c t i n g , I n c . , 603 So. 2d 899, 901 ( A l a . 1992) . In McCollum, however, the p l a i n t i f f o b j e c t e d t o the d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t e m p t t o e l i c i t e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g an u n p l e a d e d c l a i m s e e k i n g an easement f o r i n g r e s s and e g r e s s , s t a t i n g : "'We're not r e a l l y g e t t i n g i n t o access Not f r o m t h e p l e a d i n g s [ s e e k i n g a j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a b o u n d a r y l i n e ] . ' " 521 So. 2d a t 17. F o r t h a t r e a s o n a l o n e , and i r r e s p e c t i v e o f any o v e r l a p i n t h e e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e p l e a d e d and u n p l e a d e d c l a i m s , t h e r e was no t r i a l o f t h e u n p l e a d e d c l a i m by c o n s e n t . See W r i g h t e t a l . , § 1493 a t 33-34. 5 17 2110185 e v i d e n c e was introduced at t r i a l without o b j e c t i o n and b o t h p a r t i e s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e d e f e n s e was a t i s s u e ) . in such c a s e s has been e x p l a i n e d The r u l e as f o l l o w s : "[W]hen t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t i s c l a i m e d t o show t h a t an i s s u e was t r i e d b y c o n s e n t i s r e l e v a n t t o an i s s u e a l r e a d y i n t h e c a s e , as w e l l as t o t h e one t h a t i s t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e amendment, a n d t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n a t t r i a l t h a t t h e p a r t y who i n t r o d u c e d t h e e v i d e n c e was s e e k i n g t o r a i s e a new i s s u e , t h e p l e a d i n g s w i l l n o t be deemed amended u n d e r R u l e 1 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) [ , F e d . R. C i v . P. ] The r e a s o n i n g behind t h i s view i s sound s i n c e i f e v i d e n c e i s i n t r o d u c e d t o s u p p o r t b a s i c i s s u e s t h a t a l r e a d y have b e e n p l e a d e d , t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y may n o t be c o n s c i o u s o f i t s r e l e v a n c e t o i s s u e s n o t r a i s e d by t h e p l e a d i n g s u n l e s s t h a t f a c t i s made c l e a r . " 6 Wright e t a l . , § 1493 a t 34-40 omitted). In the present (emphasis case, added; evidence unpleaded defense of j u d i c i a l estoppel footnotes concerning was a l s o r e l e v a n t t o CVS's answer g e n e r a l l y d e n y i n g W a s h i n g t o n ' s c l a i m . not mention judicial estoppel at the trial, and CVS d i d i t s cross- e x a m i n a t i o n o f W a s h i n g t o n d i d n o t c l e a r l y s i g n a l an i n t e n t t o raise the unpleaded defense. case was tried More i m p o r t a n t l y , i n 2011, b e f o r e this court's the present decision i n Clemons i n d i c a t e d t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f t h e c o u r t was w i l l i n g t o apply the doctrine 6 S e e n o t e 4, of j u d i c i a l supra. 18 estoppel, i n an appropriate 2110185 case, to preclude receiving she had r e c e i v e d (Ala. workers' compensation claimant from 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 b e c a u s e he o r same p e r i o d . law a unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s When t h e p r e s e n t Florence c a s e was t r i e d , f o r the the applicable E n a m e l i n g Co. v . J o n e s , 361 So. 2d 564, 567 C i v . App. 1978) ( s t a t i n g t h a t " t h e r e i s no p r o v i s i o n i n t h e workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w ... d i s q u a l i f y i n g an e m p l o y e e f r o m r e c e i v i n g workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s i f he i s a l s o receiving unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n " ) ; C o r p . v. S h e l t o n , (stating that 336 So. 2d 1367, the receipt b e n e f i t s "does n o t p r e c l u d e and R i c h a r d s o n Homes 1370 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1976) of unemployment-compensation an a w a r d o f workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n [ b e n e f i t s ] " ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s b y Ex p a r t e Drummond Co., 837 So. 2d 831 alerted Washington (Ala. 2001) to the fact would that not l i k e l y t h e new e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t t o the unpleaded defense of j u d i c i a l The trial court judicial estoppel, thereby, implicitly struck the concluding that have was estoppel. affirmative defense of i t had been w a i v e d , and, f i n d i n g t h a t i t had n o t been t r i e d by t h e consent of the p a r t i e s . Despite the fact that the t r i a l court d i d n o t e m p l o y t h e a n a l y t i c a l f r a m e w o r k we have u s e d t o d e c i d e 19 2110185 the waiver i s s u e , i t s u l t i m a t e c o n c l u s i o n was c o r r e c t . appellate court] reason, can a f f i r m a t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t f o r any e v e n one n o t c o n t e m p l a t e d b y t h e t r i a l T u r n e r v . Westhampton C o u r t , "[An court. See L.L.C., 903 So. 2d 82, 88 (Ala. 2004) ('This C o u r t c a n a f f i r m a t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t f o r any reason, but only i f t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l evidences the fact that i s the basis f o r the affirmance.' ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e Ryals, 773 C a r r o l l v. W.L. Petrey So. 2d 1011, 1013 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ) ) . " W h o l e s a l e Co., 941 So. 2d 234, 240 n.6 The Disability "Permanent t o t a l physical injury ... p e r m a n e n t l y a n d t o t a l l y w o r k i n g a t and b e i n g not i s d e f i n e d t o i n c l u d e "any f r o m an a c c i d e n t , w h i c h injury i n c a p a c i t a t e s t h e employee from r e t r a i n e d f o r g a i n f u l employment." A l a . Code 1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) d . absolute Determination disability" ... r e s u l t i n g ( A l a . 2006). helplessness; " T o t a l d i s a b i l i t y does n o t mean r a t h e r , i t means t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e i s a b l e t o p e r f o r m h i s o r h e r t r a d e and i s unable t o o b t a i n other reasonably g a i n f u l employment." Dolgencorp, I n c . v. Hudson, 924 So. 2d 727, 734 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . A t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , W a s h i n g t o n was 54 y e a r s o l d a n d h a d w o r k e d f o r 33 y e a r s . She c o m p l e t e d t h e 1 1 t h g r a d e a n d d o e s 20 2110185 not have a general equivalency diploma. e x p e r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b a s e d upon h e r FCE vocational disability i s i n the range CVS's v o c a t i o n a l alone, Washington's of 40 to 50 percent; W a s h i n g t o n ' s v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b a s e d upon h e r FCE a l o n e , Washington's v o c a t i o n a l d i s a b i l i t y i s i n the range o f 55 t o 60 p e r c e n t . Washington t e s t i f i e d t h e p a i n i n h e r n e c k and type of work, considering and to trial observe her Washington's completely unable The shoulder, she vocational reported t h a t , because c o u l d not p e r f o r m expert level of pain, any that, she was t o work. c o u r t , n o t i n g t h a t i t had had the opined of demeanor, movements of Washington testimony t o be concluded t h a t she was tone, in facial court," "the expressions, found " c r e d i b l e w i t h regard to her p e r m a n e n t l y and opportunity Washington's injury," and i t t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d from g a i n f u l employment as a r e s u l t o f h e r w o r k - r e l a t e d injury. "'[O]ur review i s r e s t r i c t e d to a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether the t r i a l court's factual f i n d i n g s are s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . A l a . Code 1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) ( 2 ) . T h i s s t a t u t o r i l y mandated scope of r e v i e w does n o t p e r m i t t h i s c o u r t t o r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t u a l f i n d i n g on t h e g r o u n d t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports a contrary f a c t u a l f i n d i n g ; r a t h e r , i t permits t h i s c o u r t to r e v e r s e the t r i a l court's judgment only i f i t s factual finding is not 21 and 2110185 s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . See Ex p a r t e M & D Mech. C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . , 725 So. 2d 292 ( A l a . 1998). A trial court's findings of fact on c o n f l i c t i n g evidence are c o n c l u s i v e i f they are s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Edwards v. J e s s e Stutts, I n c . , 655 So. 2d 1012 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) .'" White Tiger Graphics, (quoting Landers 151 I n c . v. v. Lowe's ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) The t r i a l Clemons, Home C t r s . , 88 So. 3d at 913 I n c . , 14 So. 3d 144, ( o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l s u b m i s s i o n ) ) . court's finding of permanent t o t a l disability is s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , and i t s j u d g m e n t i s due to be a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s in the r e s u l t , Thompson, i n the r a t i o n a l e w i t h w r i t i n g , which P.J., concurs i n p a r t and Donaldson, J . , j o i n s . i n the r e s u l t , without 22 concurs writing. 2110185 MOORE, J u d g e , concurring concurring i n the r e s u l t . in the rational i n part I agree w i t h t h e main o p i n i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e a finding that permanently purposes. Gloria and t o t a l l y Washington disabled ("the supports employee") f o r workers' and is compensation I a l s o agree t h a t the defense of j u d i c i a l estoppel does n o t a p p l y , b u t f o r r e a s o n s d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h o s e s t a t e d i n the main opinion. I f i n d no n e e d t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r CVS/Caremark ("the employer") p r o p e r l y judicial apply the i n White T i g e r 915-16 rationale i n part Shelton, I believe context. As Graphics, 336 defense I stated does n o t i n my special I n c . v . C l e m o n s , 88 So. 3d and c o n c u r r i n g So. 2d 1367, 1370 i n the r e s u l t ) , So. 2d 564 ( A l a . C i v . App. g r o u n d s b y Ex p a r t e 831 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d i n F l o r e n c e unemployment that this o v e r 35 y e a r s ago i n R i c h a r d s o n Homes C o r p . v. o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r 361 r a i s e d the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n court decided 2d because i n the present writing 908, estoppel Corporation does "that the receipt of not p r o h i b i t the receipt of workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s . " 23 Drummond Co., 837 So. E n a m e l i n g Co. v . J o n e s , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , compensation 1976), 361 So. 2d a t 567. The 2110185 court r e a s o n e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h the l e g i s l a t u r e had i n c l u d e d provision seq., i n t h e Unemployment C o m p e n s a t i o n A l a . Code 1975, 7 regarding the A c t , § 25-4-1 e t effect of c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m on an u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n l e g i s l a t u r e had not i n c l u d e d compensation benefits unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n . " determined benefits the receipt would not preclude provided benefits workers' c l a i m , the is from r e c e i v i n g also In o t h e r words, of unless receiving this court unemployment-compensation the the receipt of legislature workers' explicitly f o r such a defense. Since those d e c i s i o n s body who i f he Id. that compensation a any " p r o v i s i o n i n t h e workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w ... d i s q u a l i f y i n g an employee workmen's a created were i s s u e d , the workers' the l e g i s l a t u r e , the compensation remedy, has not Section 25-4-78(9), A l a . Code 1975, with certain p r o v i s o s , c u r r e n t l y p r e c l u d e s an employee from recovering u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s f o r "any week w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h i c h , o r a p a r t o f w h i c h , he [ o r she] has r e c e i v e d o r i s seeking compensation f o r temporary d i s a b i l i t y under any w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w . " T h a t s t a t u t e was i n e f f e c t when t h i s c o u r t d e c i d e d S h e l t o n and was e x p r e s s l y d e s c r i b e d i n J o n e s as "a p r o v i s i o n i n t h e unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w disqualifying a person from receiving unemployment compensation i f he i s r e c e i v i n g workmen's compensation benefits." 361 So. 2d a t 567. 7 24 2110185 amended Alabama's workers' compensation laws to supersede t h o s e d e c i s i o n s , even i n t h e 1990's when i t c o m p l e t e l y r e v i s e d t h e A l a b a m a 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 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, generally to add e m p l o y e r s , s e e , e.g., A c t No. and strengthen 92-537, A l a . A c t s defenses 1992. " O v e r r u l i n g [ R i c h a r d s o n Homes C o r p . v. S h e l t o n , 336 So. 2d 1367, 1370 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 6 ) , and Florence E n a m e l i n g Co. v. J o n e s , 361 So. 2d 564 (Ala. C i v . App. 1978),] i n the face of this l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y would v i o l a t e the r u l e that ' [ t ] h e L e g i s l a t u r e , when i t e n a c t s l e g i s l a t i o n , i s p r e s u m e d t o have k n o w l e d g e o f e x i s t i n g l a w and o f the j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of e x i s t i n g s t a t u t e s . ' M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y Med. C t r . v. Hodgen, 884 So. 2d 801, 814 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . See a l s o Ex p a r t e Drummond Co., 837 So. 2d 831, 835 n.9 ( A l a . 2002) ('In 1968, t h i s C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e B e l l [ v. D r i s k i l l , 282 A l a . 640, 213 So. 2d 806 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , ] t e s t . The L e g i s l a t u r e has h a d more t h a n 30 y e a r s t o o v e r r u l e o r m o d i f y t h a t d e c i s i o n ; i t has c h o s e n n o t t o do s o . M o r e o v e r , i n t h o s e 30 y e a r s , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e has amended t h e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t . "'[W]hen t h e l e g i s l a t u r e r e a d o p t s a code s e c t i o n , o r i n c o r p o r a t e s i t i n t o a s u b s e q u e n t Code, p r i o r d e c i s i o n s of t h i s court p e r m e a t e t h e s t a t u t e , and i t i s p r e s u m e d t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d e l i b e r a t e l y adopted the s t a t u t e w i t h knowledge of t h i s c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e o f . ' " ' ( q u o t i n g J o n e s v. C o n r a d i , 673 So. 2d 389, 392 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n E d g e h i l l C o r p . v. H u t c h e n s , 282 A l a . 492, 495-96, 213 So. 2d 225, 227-28 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ) ) ; Ex p a r t e H e a l t h S o u t h C o r p . , 851 So. 2d 33, 41-42 ( A l a . 2002) ('Presumably, when t h e L e g i s l a t u r e reenacts o r amends a s t a t u t e without a l t e r i n g l a n g u a g e t h a t has b e e n j u d i c i a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d , i t adopts a p a r t i c u l a r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n . ' ) . Had the L e g i s l a t u r e d i s a g r e e d w i t h the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of [ t h e A c t ] g i v e n by t h i s C o u r t i n [ S h e l t o n and J o n e s ] 25 for 2110185 i t c o u l d have e a s i l y amended [ t h e A c t ] i n 1992, 1993, 1995, o r 1996 when i t c h a n g e d , added, o r repealed no l e s s t h a n 90 o t h e r s e c t i o n s of the Workers' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t . The Legislature has a c q u i e s c e d i n t h e h o l d i n g o f [ S h e l t o n and J o n e s ] and to overrule th[ose] case[s] now w o u l d be to d i s r e g a r d the d o c t r i n e of stare d e c i s i s . " H e x c e l D e c a t u r , I n c . v. V i c k e r s , 908 So. 2d 237, 240-41 ( A l a . 2005). I do not misrepresenting b e h a v i o r may 145(a)(1), to the the state A l a . Code 1975 t h e l a w as s t a t e d Circuit determination misrepresented offense to to chapter"). work, ("the trial the employee despite to the s t a t e that the she against the state's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems by t h i s r e s u l t s h o u l d 26 "willfully willfully to that work the reach i t s permanentshe had solely in benefits. judicial n o t be any I believe authorized fact unemployment-compensation committed ... receive could which See § 25-4- However, court") should in or increase i n J o n e s and S h e l t o n benefits obtain or fact to obtain Court that total-disability order ability statement or representation to disclose a material Jefferson her behavior (making i t a c r i m e t o b e n e f i t o r payment u n d e r t h i s that employee's w e l l have b e e n c r i m i n a l i n n a t u r e . make[] a f a l s e fail[] condone Any or redressed 2110185 through the withholding of workers' compensation benefits pursuant to the d o c t r i n e of j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l , at l e a s t u n t i l our l e g i s l a t u r e decides otherwise, mechanisms t h a t are already has expressly (holding receipt endorsed. that i n place, See which Shelton, injustice rather, 336 occurring unemployment-compensation through our legislature So. due the 2d to at 1370 employee's should be c o r r e c t e d by A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , not court of any but, awarding Clemons, 88 workers' So. 3d at benefits compensation 916 (Moore, r a t i o n a l e i n p a r t and c o n c u r r i n g benefits); J., see concurring also the ("Unless i n the r e s u l t ) in and u n t i l the l e g i s l a t u r e a c t s , t h i s court i s powerless to o r r e l y on a j u d i c i a l That said, or e q u i t a b l e even i f defense, i t i s apparent its by pleadings the implied estoppel the t r i a l d i s c r e t i o n i n concluding tried remedy on t h e s u b j e c t . " ) . judicial that that consent of create court was parties viable d i d not the defense the a exceed had not such that s h o u l d be amended t o i n c l u d e t h e d e f e n s e u n d e r 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. been the Rule C i v . P. When an a l l e g e d l y i n j u r e d w o r k e r s t a t e s i n an a p p l i c a t i o n for unemployment-compensation 27 benefits that he or she is 2110185 physically able the worker as p r o o f See Guster (Ala. t o work, t h a t a d m i s s i o n that may be u s e d no d i s a b l i n g i n j u r y has against occurred. v. G o o d y e a r T i r e & R u b b e r Co., 611 So. 2d 370, 371 C i v . App. 1992) (evidence that worker indicated i n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s t h a t he was ready, willing, and a b l e t o accept o f f e r e d t o h i m , among o t h e r e v i d e n c e , worker had not s u s t a i n e d admission disability employment supported a compensable finding injury). that Such an c o n s t i t u t e s a statement i n c o n s i s t e n t with a c l a i m of that may be u s e d by a t r i a l court undermining the c r e d i b i l i t y of the worker. Liz i f i t was C l a i b o r n e , I n c . , 872 So. 2d 181, as evidence See P a t t e r s o n v. 187 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) (Per Thompson, J . , w i t h one j u d g e c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y a n d one judge concurring "implausible" i n the result) the worker's (where explanation trial court found for inconsistent s t a t e m e n t s made i n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n benefits, testimony trial court was authorized to reject worker's i n i t s e n t i r e t y as t o c a u s e o f h e r b a c k i n j u r y ) . A s t a t e m e n t made b y a w o r k e r i n an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r unemploymentc o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s i s an e x t r a j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n , explained by o u r supreme court 28 i n Liberty w h i c h , as National Life 2110185 I n s u r a n c e Co. v. D a u g h e r t y , (quoting Law 9 J o h n H e n r y Wigmore, E v i d e n c e § 2588 a t 821-22 an i t e m o f e v i d e n c e , theory 840 So. 2d 152, 161 ( A l a . 2002) (Chadbourn r e v . e d . 1 9 8 1 ) ) , [T]he [ q u a s i - a d m i s s i o n ] That statement " i s i n t h e nature of t h e p l a i n t i f f " ' i s merely i s available against a i s not conclusive o f an a d m i s s i o n which bore h e a v i l y a g a i n s t the c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence," R.R. a t Common a v a i l a b l e a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y on t h e same on w h i c h a s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t i o n witness i n Trials '" on t h e p a r t him i n weighing B e l l v. Tennessee C o a l , I r o n & Co., 247 A l a . 394, 396, 24 So. 2d 443, 444 (1946) ( d i s c u s s i n g t h e e f f e c t o f s t a t e m e n t s made b y an i n j u r e d w o r k e r in a claim for nonoccupational i n j u r y and s i c k n e s s insurance b e n e f i t s ) , b u t w h i c h does n o t have t h e e f f e c t o f e s t o p p i n g t h e worker from asserting h i s or her claim f o r workers' compensation b e n e f i t s . I d . During regarding the trial, statements Department t h e employer t h e employee of I n d u s t r i a l Relations introduced h a d made evidence t o t h e Alabama i n her application f o r u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t s h e was able to admissions work. The trial court expressly treated the made b y t h e e m p l o y e e t h a t s h e was a b l e t o work as 29 2110185 extrajudicial admissions evidence determining in disability t o be w e i g h e d a l o n g w i t h t h e o t h e r the and c r e d i b i l i t y extent of the employee's a n d n o t as e v i d e n c e of judicial e s t o p p e l , a defense t h a t had n o t been e x p r e s s l y p l e a d e d by t h e employer before the t r i a l . Rule 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., r e q u i r e s a trial court to amend t h e p l e a d i n g s t o c o n f o r m t o t h e e v i d e n c e i f t h e p a r t i e s expressly or i m p l i e d l y consented t o such l i t i g a t i n g an u n p l e a d e d c l a i m o r d e f e n s e . 55 So. 3d 248, determination express 251 ( A l a . C i v . App. 'as t o w h e t h e r or implied consent an amendment See Aman v. G i l l e y , 2010). [an] i s s u e under Rule However, has b e e n n o t be altered discretion].'" on appeal "a tried by 1 5 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] i s a m a t t e r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n , will by absent an abuse I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rehab. A s s o c s . , which [of t h a t I n c . v . Adams, 613 So. 2d 1207, 1214 ( A l a . 1992) ( q u o t i n g M c C o l l u m v . R e e v e s , 521 So. pleaded 2d 13, 16 defense, introduction of ( A l a . 1987)). a that trial court evidence I f evidence can does determine not inject supports a that the any new, unpleaded i s s u e s i n t o t h e case f o r t h e purposes o f Rule 1 5 ( b ) . See M c C o l l u m v. R e e v e s , 521 So. 2d a t 17; a n d F o y v . F o y , 447 30 2110185 So. 2d 158, 162-63 reasonably could ( A l a . 1984). In t h i s case, the t r i a l have f o u n d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e , by q u e s t i o n s t h a t were h i g h l y r e l e v a n t court answering t o the employer's answer g e n e r a l l y d e n y i n g h e r c l a i m t h a t she was u n a b l e t o work, d i d not i m p l i e d l y consent t o t r y the unpleaded defense of j u d i c i a l estoppel o f w h i c h she h a d h a d no p r i o r Donaldson, J . , concurs. 31 notice.

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.