Jeremy McRae v. Second Mile Development, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/02/2013 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2111122 Jeremy McRae v. Second M i l e Development, Inc. Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (CV-10-900520) Court DONALDSON, J u d g e . Jeremy McRae Circuit Court ("Second Mile"), appeals i n favor from a judgment o f Second Mile o f t h e Madison Development, I n c . b a r r i n g McRae f r o m r e c e i v i n g permanent d i s a b i l i t y temporary and c o m p e n s a t i o n under t h e Alabama W o r k e r s ' 2111122 Compensation Act, § 25-5-1 et seq., A c t " ) , f o r an A p r i l 2009 w o r k - r e l a t e d Ala. Code 1975 ("the i n j u r y and d e n y i n g McRae any w o r k e r ' s c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r a s u b s e q u e n t i n t e r v e n i n g i n j u r y . We the a f f i r m the judgment i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i t i n p a r t , and remand course w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s . Facts The & Procedural History evidence p r e s e n t e d below r e v e a l s the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s . McRae b e g a n w o r k i n g f o r S e c o n d M i l e i n F e b r u a r y 2009. S e c o n d M i l e i s a c h a r i t a b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n o p e r a t i n g i n Madison County, Alabama t h a t p r o v i d e s v a r i o u s s e r v i c e s t o t h e community. J a m i e B u s h , a d i v i s i o n d i r e c t o r w i t h S e c o n d M i l e , recommended McRae, her cousin, worked for a position with i n Second M i l e ' s included bailing accepting warehouse donated donations, April 28, and clothing, testing occasionally a s s i s t i n g with On S e c o n d M i l e . McRae p r i m a r i l y performed operating donated a he was a donation returning to S e c o n d M i l e w a r e h o u s e on h i s p e r s o n a l m o t o r c y c l e and t h e S e c o n d M i l e t r u c k when he was and pickups. a s s i s t i n g with p i c k u p . A f t e r p i c k i n g up t h e d o n a t i o n , that forklift, electronics, offsite-donation 2009, McRae was tasks the following s t r u c k by a n o t h e r v e h i c l e a t an i n t e r s e c t i o n . As a r e s u l t o f t h e c o l l i s i o n , McRae s u f f e r e d 2 2111122 significant injuries, i n c l u d i n g an open, compound f r a c t u r e t o the left l e g above t h e a n k l e , a broken collar-bone, cuts to his f i n g e r s , and a b r o k e n c h e e k bone. The most s e r i o u s injury, t h e i n j u r y a t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e , was t h e compound f r a c t u r e o f the tibia and fibula created by the Michael Miller, of the left f r a c t u r e . On t h e day McRae's t r e a t i n g on l e g and of the accident, physician f o r the injury, irrigation and d e b r i d e m e n t o f t h e wound and p l a c e m e n t o f an postoperative treatment Dr. healing. s u f f e r e d a s e t b a c k i n June 2009 when t h e open wound d e v e l o p e d d r a i n a g e to w i t h Dr. M i l l e r . 13, 2009, t h a t t h e l e g was McRae's r e c o v e r y inserted included ("IM n a i l " ) t o s t a b i l i z e t h e b r o k e n b o n e s . M i l l e r n o t e d on May was l e g . Surgery Dr. surgery McRae c o n t i n u e d left wound performed intramedullary nail McRae's t h e open clear "Hickman" catheter was administer antibiotics the and b r e a k d o w n . A "wound v a c " drainage, inserted to fight into a staph and an intravenous McRae's chest to infection that had d e v e l o p e d . The Hickman c a t h e t e r and t h e wound v a c were removed in l a t e J u l y 2009. McRae r e t u r n e d t o work w i t h S e c o n d M i l e on J u l y 27, 2009, performing light-duty work, such 3 as stuffing donation 2111122 envelopes, for putting together the upcoming s c h o o l equipment. returning McRae to school-supply year, testified work he and for children t e s t i n g donated e l e c t r o n i c that a month began p e r f o r m i n g b a i l i n g c l o t h e s and u n l o a d i n g kits and other a half duties such as t r u c k s . Testimony i n d i c a t e s that Dr. M i l l e r r e l e a s e d McRae f o r r e g u l a r d u t y b e g i n n i n g 6, after on A u g u s t 2009. In Mile, the months McRae was following embroiled his in return work at Second incident an to with a female c o w o r k e r i n v o l v i n g t h e e x c h a n g e o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e t e x t messages t h a t were s e x u a l well as i n nature. other admonished He and the female co-worker, employees in violating for involved the Second Mile's incident, as were sexual-harassment policy. Testimony recovery indicates f r o m t h e i n j u r y was indications of a suspected McRae's l e f t l e g . The Dr. Miller surgically that in again November 2009 McRae's hampered, t h i s t i m e due i n f e c t i o n that had developed r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t on November 5, removed t h e IM nail from the i m p l a n t e d a n t i b i o t i c b e a d s t o combat t h e s u s p e c t e d in 2009, leg and infection. I n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y , Dr. M i l l e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t he 4 to felt 2111122 that t h e f r a c t u r e h a d h e a l e d t o t h e p o i n t where t h e I M c o u l d be removed a n d t h e a n t i b i o t i c b e a d s c o u l d be McRae t e s t i f i e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d when s t e p p i n g nail implanted. he r e f r a c t u r e d h i s l e f t l e g o u t o f a t r u c k two weeks a f t e r t h e November 5, 2009, s u r g e r y ; however, t h e r e i s no m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t McRae's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he r e f r a c t u r e d h i s leg. The r e c o r d upon noting shows t h a t that there on F e b r u a r y was no 8, 2010, D r . evidence of an Miller, infection, removed t h e a n t i b i o t i c b e a d s a n d i m p l a n t e d a n o t h e r I M Dr. Miller's exhibited Miller's occurring no medical records sign infection notes of relating indicate that during this McRae's leg surgery. Dr. t o McRae's p o s t o p e r a t i v e two weeks f o l l o w i n g t h e s u r g e r y evaluation i n d i c a t e that the wound was h e a l i n g and t h a t t h e f r a c t u r e h a d " b r i d g e d on three sides According and w e l l McRae at least aligned." t o Dr. M i l l e r ' s v i s i t w i t h Dr. M i l l e r nail. records, McRae h a d an office on May 24, 2010. D r . M i l l e r n o t e d " s e e m [ e d ] t o be doing Miller's records relating McRae's "wound itself pretty to that visit ha[d] healed 5 well generally." further in state nicely and that Dr. that the 2111122 surrounding s o f t t i s s u e s [ l o o k e d ] good." Dr.Miller indicated t h a t McRae h a d c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t h i s l e f t f o o t g o i n g numb a n d t h a t he h a d r e f e r r e d McRae t o D r . B r i a n C a r t e r , D r . M i l l e r ' s partner, might t o i n v e s t i g a t e the source be Miller causing t h e n u m b n e s s . I n t h e May ultimately hardening recommended program " t o see f u n c t i o n a l i t t l e more." that McRae was of a nerve problem ready that i f we 24 McRae can as o f May report, begin normalize a Dr. work h i s work D r . M i l l e r also stated i n the report for a functional-capacity ("FCE") a n d an i m p a i r m e n t r a t i n g . The r e c o r d Dr. M i l l e r that evaluation indicates that r e l e a s e d McRae t o r e t u r n t o w o r k a t m o d i f i e d duty 24, determination 2010. Dr. M i l l e r that McRae d i d n o t make had i m p r o v e m e n t ("MMI") a t t h a t reached time. a specific maximum medical At t r i a l , McRae admitted t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f r o m Dr. M i l l e r , he d i d n o t a t t e n d a work h a r d e n i n g p r o g r a m a n d t h a t he d i d n o t o b t a i n an FCE at that foot time. numbness records McRae d i d u n d e r go n e r v e with Dr. C a r t e r , Dr. Carter's i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t e s t i n g showed n o r m a l Upon r e c e i v i n g n o t i f i c a t i o n McRae and t e s t i n g f o r the f o r modified work duty, 6 medical results. o f Dr. M i l l e r ' s release of Bush efforts to undertook 2111122 contact she McRae r e g a r d i n g h i s r e t u r n t o work. B u s h s t a t e d e x c h a n g e d t e x t messages w i t h 2010, that McRae on o r a r o u n d J u n e 1, i n w h i c h McRae i n d i c a t e d t h a t he w o u l d o n l y be a b l e t o return t o work only i f he could have "a h u n d r e d percent" a s s u r a n c e t h a t he w o u l d n o t be a r o u n d t h e c o w o r k e r w i t h whom he h a d p r e v i o u s l y e x c h a n g e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e t e x t m e s s a g e s . testified as f o l l o w s regarding her response sent Bush v i a text message: "And I s a i d , ' I c a n make you guys as f a r a p a r t as p o s s i b l e , b u t I j u s t c a n ' t g u a r a n t e e t h a t you w i l l n e v e r c r o s s p a t h s . ' I s a i d , ' I do u n d e r s t a n d , b u t s i n c e t h e document r e l e a s e d y o u , I w i l l n e e d a l e t t e r o f r e s i g n a t i o n . I hate t h i s . ' Jeremy says, 'Oh, I t r u l y u n d e r s t a n d . W e ' l l g e t [my w i f e ] t o w r i t e me one up s i n c e I d o n ' t have a c o m p u t e r . ' " She Dr. further t e s t i f i e d Miller's restrictions that she w o u l d have i f McRae accommodated had r e t u r n e d t o work. T e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t McRae s t a r t e d a l a w n - c a r e b u s i n e s s i n J u n e 2010 a n d t h a t he p r o m o t e d h i s b u s i n e s s w i t h yard signs. McRae, h o w e v e r , c o n t e n d e d a t t r i a l t h a t he c u t o n l y s i x y a r d s , t h a t he was p h y s i c a l l y u n a b l e t o p e r f o r m t h e work, a n d t h a t he did not consider records late as t h e lawn indicate that August 4, work t o be McRae was w o r k i n g employment. as a l a n d s c a p e r 2010. A d d i t i o n a l l y , B u s h 7 Medical had as e-mailed 2111122 McRae's w i f e work. i n J u n e 2010 t o s e e when McRae c o u l d McRae's w i f e ' s w o u l d n o t be a b l e including: proximity (1) to e-mail to return the the coworker to perform that t o w o r k due t o s e v e r a l concern exchanged i n a p p r o p r i a t e want replies indicated return to regarding with whom working he had McRae reasons, in close previously t e x t m e s s a g e s ; ( 2 ) t h a t McRae d i d n o t office work and t h a t he was not able to p e r f o r m w a r e h o u s e work; and (3) t h a t McRae h a d s t a r t e d a l a w n care business t o which he w a n t e d t o devote h i s time. Bush t e s t i f i e d t h a t , because o f the substance o f the communications she received started a from McRae lawn-care affirmatively and h i s w i f e , business, responded to because and because the o f f e r to McRae had McRae had not return, she h a d assumed McRae h a d a b a n d o n e d h i s j o b ; t h u s , she s t a t e d t h a t she formally terminated McRae's employment w i t h Second M i l e on A u g u s t 9, 2010. On A u g u s t 28, 2010, McRae again injured his left leg. McRae i n i t i a l l y s o u g h t t r e a t m e n t w i t h h i s p e r s o n a l on S e p t e m b e r 1, 2010, whose r e c o r d s McRae's l e f t physician i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s c a r on l e g h a d " b u s t open" a f t e r McRae s t e p p e d i n t o a h o l e a n d t w i s t e d h i s l e g . An X - r a y r e p o r t f o r t h a t v i s i t 8 notes 2111122 that t h e IM n a i l was s t i l l intact. McRae saw Dr. M i l l e r on S e p t e m b e r 13, 2010, b u t Dr. M i l l e r t e s t i f i e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t McRae d i d n o t i n f o r m him o f the August a c c i d e n t . M i l l e r noted that the area surrounding some s k i n b r e a k d o w n b u t t h a t X - r a y s excellent healing Dr. t h e wound h a d s u f f e r e d o f t h e bone " s h o w e [ e d ] of the f r a c t u r e . " Following a subsequent v i s i t on S e p t e m b e r 23, 2010, Dr. M i l l e r recommended r e m o v a l o f t h e IM n a i l a n d t h e i m p l a n t a t i o n o f a n t i b i o t i c b e a d s t o combat a suspected infection. The injury required two a d d i t i o n a l surgeries. I n r e p o r t s d o c u m e n t i n g o f f i c e v i s i t s d u r i n g November a n d December 2010, Dr. M i l l e r n o t e d t h a t McRae's wound was c l o s e d and looked returned fracture excellent. complaining had healed On January of pain. and t h a t 3, 2011, however, Dr. M i l l e r noted t h e bone was s t r o n g McRae that the enough t o s u p p o r t McRae's f u l l body w e i g h t , t h a t t h e s k i n o v e r t h e wound had healed, everything r e a c h e d MMI and t h a t was n o r m a l . an MRI and nerve Dr. M i l l e r as o f t h e J a n u a r y test testified indicated that and p a i n management r e l a t i n g McRae h a d 3, 2 0 1 1 , e v a l u a t i o n , r e f e r r e d McRae t o Dr. Norman McCoomer f o r f u r t h e r that b u t he treatment t o p a i n McRae was e x p e r i e n c i n g i n 9 2111122 his l e f t l e g and h i s b a c k . chronic limb, pain, and McCoomer complex biomechanical experienced body In that change pain syndrome, h i s deposition McRae's b a c k p a i n i n McRae's g a i t , pain i n the testimony, a n d " r e s u l t e d i n more [McRae's] opposite was c a u s e d b y an due to the pain that stress being he placed i n l e g , as w e l l as t h e l o w e r b a c k . " McRae had not reached MMI. Dr. He a l s o McCoomer t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e f e r r e d McRae t o A l a b a m a T h e r a p e u t i c for Dr. i n t h e l e f t l e g , t h a t f o r c e d him t o "change [ h i s ] weight" testified regional depression. testified D r . McCoomer d i a g n o s e d McRae w i t h an FCE, w h i c h was c o n d u c t e d on J u l y 29, 2 0 1 1 . Center McRae was a l s o t r e a t e d b y D r . K e i t h A n d e r s o n , who t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was his o p i n i o n t h a t McRae s u f f e r e d f r o m c h r o n i c p a i n i n t h e l e f t lower extremity o f h i s l e g due t o h i s i n j u r y a n d t h e m u l t i p l e s u r g e r i e s , " a s w e l l as w e a k n e s s i n t h e m u s c l e s o f t h e l e f t l e g f r o m h i s i n j u r y . " D r . A n d e r s o n s t a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t McRae d i d not exhibit Miller signs of complex regional pain syndrome. Dr. recommended a c o u r s e o f t r e a t m e n t f o r McRae's l e g p a i n t h a t r e q u i r e d u s i n g a s p i n a l - c o r d s t i m u l a t o r , and Dr. Anderson recommended a t l e a s t a t r i a l run of that 10 treatment. 2111122 McRae s u e d S e c o n d Mile i n the Madison April 30, 2010 s e e k i n g b e n e f i t s 2011, Second Mile filed under a motion Circuit C o u r t on t h e A c t . I n December to bifurcate the t r i a l to f i r s t r e s o l v e t h e d i s p u t e as t o t h e c o m p e n s a b i l i t y o f McRae's injuries, The f o l l o w e d by a t r i a l trial court granted c o m p e n s a b i l i t y was t r i e d c o n c e r n i n g McRae's d i s a b i l i t y . the motion, The t r i a l unreasonably issue of c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on c o u r t f o u n d t h a t McRae h a d r e a c h e d MMI on May 24, 2010. The t r i a l had the i n an o r e t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g on M a r c h 29 a n d M a r c h 30, 2012. The t r i a l May 1, 2012. and court also determined that r e f u s e d Second Mile's offer of McRae suitable employment a n d , t h u s , was b a r r e d f r o m r e c e i v i n g t e m p o r a r y o r permanent d i s a b i l i t y compensation under § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) e , A l a . Code 1975. August and, compensation a precluded benefits motion alternative, July c o u r t f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t McRae's 28, 2010, i n j u r y was a s u b s e q u e n t thus filed The t r i a l 8, 2012. to McRae from from August alter, f o r new t r i a l , McRae f i l e d receiving any or vacate the t r i a l or, injury workers' 28, 2010, f o r w a r d . amend, which intervening McRae i n the c o u r t d e n i e d on a timely notice of appeal t o t h i s court. 11 2111122 On by a p p e a l , McRae c o n t e n d s placing the burden of t h a t the t r i a l proof concerning court erred ( 1 ) Second Mile's d e f e n s e s on McRae; (2) by d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t McRae's A u g u s t 2010, his i n j u r y was April a subsequent 2009 intervening injury unrelated to work-related compensable; (3) supported conclusion that 2010; and the (4) by penalty provisions by 28, injury finding that and, thus, was substantial 24, under the o f § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) e , A l a . Code 1975, for McRae any MMI evidence May denying McRae r e a c h e d not on compensation u n r e a s o n a b l y r e f u s i n g a s u i t a b l e o f f e r o f employment. S t a n d a r d of Review "The standard of a p p e l l a t e review i n workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n c a s e s i s g o v e r n e d by § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s : "'(1) In r e v i e w i n g the s t a n d a r d of p r o o f s e t f o r t h h e r e i n and o t h e r l e g a l issues, r e v i e w by the Court of Civil A p p e a l s 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 o f correctness.' "'(2) In r e v i e w i n g pure f i n d i n g s of f a c t , the f i n d i n g of the c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l n o t be r e v e r s e d i f t h a t f i n d i n g 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 . ' " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s '"evidence of such w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " ' Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y I n d u s . , I n c . , 680 So. 2d 262, 268 12 2111122 ( A l a . 1996) ( q u o t i n g West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t 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 S t u t t s , I n c . , 655 So. 2d 1012 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) . 'This c o u r t ' s r o l e i s not t o reweigh the e v i d e n c e , b u t t o a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i f i t s f i n d i n g s a r e 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 and, i f s o , i f t h e c o r r e c t l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s a r e drawn t h e r e f r o m . ' B o s t r o m S e a t i n g , I n c . v. A d d e r h o l d , 852 So. 2d 784, 794 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " Denmark v. I n d u s t r i a l M f g . S p e c i a l i s t s , 543-44 ( A l a . C i v . App. I n c . , 98 So. 3d 541, 2012). Discussion McRae assigning first contends the burden that the trial court of p r o o f t o him i n s t e a d of Second w i t h r e g a r d t o S e c o n d M i l e ' s d e f e n s e s . The employee has the burden of erred proof to establish a right to in Mile generally workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s u n d e r t h e A c t . See S a f e c o I n s . Cos. Blackmon, has 851 So. 2d 532 the burden issue that T e r r y A. may ( A l a . C i v . App. of p r o v i n g reduce any 2 0 0 2 ) . The affirmative Moore, A l a b a m a W o r k e r s ' employer defenses a workers' compensation Compensation or award. § 25:4 may reduce unreasonable its refusal compensation of the outlay employee 13 to such accept any See at ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( " [ T ] h e e m p l o y e r b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f on any that v. as: 2 615 issue the suitable 2111122 employment or t o submit rehabilitation to medical treatment or v o c a t i o n a l " ) . McRae makes a general reference to the t r i a l judgment i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s argument. Second M i l e address this argument. A l t h o u g h does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y the t r i a l court's does n o t court's judgment s t a t e t h a t Second M i l e bore t h e burden o f p r o o f as t o any a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n before us t h a t t h e t r i a l court improperly a p p l i e d the burdens of p r o o f . Further, issue with the t r i a l court n o t a d d r e s s a r g u m e n t s made f o r t h e f i r s t will appeal." i t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t McRae r a i s e d t h i s court i n h i s postjudgment motion. Cascaden v. W i n n - D i x i e "This t i m e on Montgomery, L L C , 81 So. 3d 1273, 1278 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 81 So. 3d 1278 (Ala. 2011) c i t i n g Andrews v . M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 (Ala. 1992)). McRae next contends that concluding that McRae's August erred in was not c o m p e n s a b l e u n d e r t h e A c t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , McRae c o n t e n d s that the that injury to h i s left consequently contributed pa r t i e s c o n c e de the 28, l e g caused trial 2010 an court injury altered gait t o the onset o f back p a i n . in the i r 14 b rie fs , As b o t h t he 2111122 successive-compensable-injury court 1084 i n Ex p a r t e P i k e test County outlined Commission, ( A l a . 1999), i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s b y o u r supreme 740 So. 2d 1080, case: "When d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a s u c c e s s i v e i n j u r y i s c o m p e n s a b l e , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t '[w]hen t h e p r i m a r y i n j u r y i s shown t o have a r i s e n o u t o f a n d i n the c o u r s e o f employment, e v e r y n a t u r a l c o n s e q u e n c e t h a t f l o w s from t h e i n j u r y l i k e w i s e a r i s e s out o f the employment, u n l e s s i t i s t h e r e s u l t o f an independent i n t e r v e n i n g cause a t t r i b u t a b l e t o [the] claimant's own i n t e n t i o n a l conduct.' 1 [Arthur Larson & Lex K.] Larson, Larson's Workers' C o m p e n s a t i o n L a w ] , § 13.00 [ ( 1 9 9 8 ) ] . I n a p p l y i n g t h i s r u l e t o a f a c t u a l l y s i m i l a r c a s e , t h e Supreme C o u r t of A p p e a l s o f West V i r g i n i a h e l d : " ' [ I ] f a worker's compensation c l a i m a n t shows t h a t he r e c e i v e d an i n i t i a l i n j u r y which a r o s e o u t o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment, t h e n e v e r y n o r m a l consequence t h a t f l o w s from t h e i n j u r y l i k e w i s e a r i s e s o u t o f t h e employment. I f , h o w e v e r , a subsequent aggravation of the initial injury arises from an independent i n t e r v e n i n g cause n o t a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e c l a i m a n t ' s customary a c t i v i t y i n l i g h t of his c o n d i t i o n , then such a g g r a v a t i o n i s not compensable. "'Thus, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t i s i n j u r e d a n d t h e n r e t u r n s t o work does n o t mean that he is foreclosed from demonstrating that the o r i g i n a l injury became a g g r a v a t e d b y some r o u t i n e e v e n t which triggered i t s recurrence. Such r o u t i n e e v e n t i s o r d i n a r i l y one where t h e c l a i m a n t i s d o i n g an a c t i v i t y t h a t w o u l d be customary i n l i g h t o f h i s c o n d i t i o n . ' 15 2111122 " W i l s o n v. W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n Comm'r, 174 W. Va. 611, 616, 328 S.E. 2d 485, 490 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; see a l s o Lou Grubb C h e v r o l e t , I n c . v. I n d u s t r i a l Comm'n, 174 A r i z . 23, 26, 846 P.2d 836, 839 ( A r i z . App. 1992) ('[An] e m p l o y e e ' s r e a s o n a b l e c o n d u c t i n c a u s i n g a later nonindustrial i n j u r y does n o t relieve the employer of l i a b i l i t y i f the l a t e r i n j u r y i s the " d i r e c t and n a t u r a l r e s u l t " o f t h e c o m p e n s a b l e work i n j u r y . ' ) . Thus, 'a s u b s e q u e n t i n j u r y , w h e t h e r an a g g r a v a t i o n o f an o r i g i n a l i n j u r y o r a new and d i s t i n c t i n j u r y , i s compensable i f i t i s the d i r e c t and n a t u r a l r e s u l t o f a c o m p e n s a b l e p r i m a r y i n j u r y . ' 1 L a r s o n , s u p r a , § 13.11." In i t s judgment i n t h i s case, the that nonoccupational 2010, injury and factors that the trial resulted court determined i n McRae's A u g u s t subsequent injury bore no causal r e l a t i o n to the o r i g i n a l i n j u r y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the t r i a l referred May t o Dr. 2010, t h a t b o t h the wound were h e a l e d , and presented at court M i l l e r ' s m e d i c a l r e c o r d s o f F e b r u a r y 2010 which state trial [McRae's] left-leg concluded that "[t]he indicates two a clear fracture and and the medical evidence distinction i n j u r i e s . " 28, between Under successive-compensable-injury test, " ' i t i s not the p l a c e where t h e accident of that second i n j u r y occurred (i.e., either the or the physical controlling, but r a t h e r whether the natural location the the the injury) subsequent i n j u r y consequence of a p r i o r compensable i n j u r y . ' " 16 situs was of is a Sistrunk 2111122 v. S i k o r s k y S u p p o r t S e r v s . , I n c . , 961 Civ. App. 1128 ( A l a . C i v . App. whether 2007) (quoting E r w i n v. 1985)). the subsequent So. 2d 166, Harris, 474 170 ( A l a . So. 2d 1125, The a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d i s not was c a u s e d by n o n o c c u p a t i o n a l injury f a c t o r s , nor i s the a p p l i c a b l e t e s t whether t h e r e i s a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two i n j u r i e s . Corp. , 772 applicable the So. 2d 1171 s t a n d a r d i s whether " b u s t i n g open" result'" 1167, ( A l a . 2000) . Rather, i s "'the d i r e c t 2009 i n j u r y , and incurred 170 ( c i t i n g L a n d s t a r R a n g e r v. K e n t , 828 So. 2d 322 a t work o r e l s e w h e r e . " S i s t r u n k , 2 0 0 2 ) , and E r w i n , 474 So. 2d a t 1 1 2 8 ) . judgment result does n o t s p e c i f y how o f an independent McRae's own intentional provide any indication intervening conduct, nor stepping 961 McRae's Therefore, customary we reverse activity the 2d a t (Ala.Civ. court's the cause attributable to does the in in light trial So. i n j u r y was a court's of trial hole c o n s i d e r e d an i n d e p e n d e n t i n t e r v e n i n g c a u s e n o t to natural The t r i a l the subsequent that the " r e g a r d l e s s of whether i t was App. Tire McRae's s e c o n d i n j u r y , i . e . , of the scar, of h i s A p r i l See Ex p a r t e D u n l o p court would be attributable his judgment condition. on this m a t t e r , and we remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r 17 2111122 proceedings concerning the successive-compensable-injury supra up application test. See Pike of the C o u n t y Comm'n, ( i n j u r e d employee's h e r n i a t e d d i s k caused w h i l e p i c k i n g his 12-pound baby at his successive-compensable-injury home was compensable under t e s t as a n a t u r a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f the primary i n j u r y ) ; see a l s o W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . v. O r r , So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 3d 210 substantial evidence 2 0 0 9 ) ( f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e was to conclude l e f t - h i p i n j u r y , w h i c h was natural consequence Sistrunk, supra of standard subsequent injury Ranger, supra the in compensable determining caused by previously e m p l o y e e was light of his injured position); Alphord, 820 So. 2d 104, J., c o n c u r r i n g left-knee court misapplied that, the for the a Landstar under injured a injury); compensability test, the employee as a r e s u l t o f o v e r c o m p e n s a t i n g f o r right performing employee's overcompensation); (concluding i n j u r e d h i s l e f t shoulder injured not b a s e d on a v a s c u l a r n e c r o s i s , was successive-compensable-injury a that ( h o l d i n g t h a t the t r i a l applicable 29 shoulder activity and holding t h a t w o u l d be and Labinal, 112 ( A l a . C i v . App. i n 18 the that the customary i n Inc./Globe Motors v. 2001)(Crawley, r e s u l t ) ( " T h e 2111122 successive-compensable-injury test ... applies to t h a t a r e n o t d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o work a c t i v i t i e s McRae's c o m p l a i n t s specifically addressed i n s t r u c t the t r i a l is entitled of l e g pain injuries " ) . As t o and back p a i n , w h i c h a r e n o t i n the t r i a l court's judgment, we c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e on remand w h e t h e r McRae t o compensation f o r those successive-compensable-injury test, complaints under t h e a n d , i f s o , t o amend i t s judgment a c c o r d i n g l y . We pretermit concerning trial the date court under trial should court remain modified McRae determines compensable should d i s c u s s i o n on t h e t r i a l that the l e g a l also a t May in light reached the 2010, judgment I f , on remand, t h e successive standard reevaluate 24, MMI. court's injuries discussed, whether the date o r whether of the compensability supra, are the o f MMI i t should be of the successive injuries. Similarly, we pretermit discussion on the issue of McRae's a l l e g e d u n r e a s o n a b l e r e f u s a l o f an o f f e r o f s u i t a b l e employment u n d e r § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) e . trial court's consideration However, we n o t e , i n amending i t s judgment remand, t h a t i n c a s e s i n w h i c h § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) e 19 f o r the on i s applicable, 2111122 the statute disability Furnace does not compensation Co. v. (1940)(finding Smith, that [Extra Session], bar recovery of p e r m a n e n t - p a r t i a l - f o r scheduled i n j u r i e s . 239 A l a . 488, "Section page 12, 7551, 492, Code See 195 So. Agricola 743, 746 (General Acts 1936 § 2 ) , " the p r e c u r s o r s t a t u t e to § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) e , " i s i n a p p l i c a b l e t o cases i n v o l v i n g permanent partial d i s a b i l i t y e n u m e r a t e d i n t h e s c h e d u l e " ) ; see a l s o Moore, 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 § 16:52 of the suitable work does not affect 1 a t 753("A r e f u s a l payment of schedule p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s . " ) . Thus, t h e p e n a l t y i n § 25-5-57(a)3)e cannot bar partial-disability-benefits 57(a)(3)a(16). McRae from receiving for his leg we note that Additionally, pursuant § permanent § 25-5- 25-5-57(a)(3)e c a n n o t b a r McRae f r o m r e c e i v i n g m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s u n d e r § 25-5¬ 77, Ala. Code applicable, because the penalty statute, i f o n l y p r o h i b i t s an i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e f r o m r e c e i v i n g "compensation." attention, 1975, "[M]edical medicine, and medical and surgical surgical treatment and supplies, and c r u t c h e s and a p p a r a t u s f u r n i s h e d an e m p l o y e e on a c c o u n t o f an injury" are compensation specifically in § excluded 25-5-1(1), 20 from A l a . Code the 1975. definition The of penalty 2111122 statute, receiving h o w e v e r , may s e r v e t o b a r an i n j u r e d benefits. VI. issue Conclusion t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t on t h e of the burden remand w i t h injuries; from c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r i n j u r i e s n o t on t h e s c h e d u l e a n d temporary-total-disability For employee of proof; instructions a n d we we reverse on t h e i s s u e pretermit t h e judgment and concerning discussion as to the r e l a t i n g t o t h e d a t e o f MMI a n d McRae's a l l e g e d refusal to return successive issues unreasonable t o work. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 21

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.