Ex parte Russell Threadgill. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Russell Threadgill v.East, Inc.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/01/2013 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, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2120016 Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l T h r e a d g i l l PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Russell Threadgill v. E a s t , Inc.) ( D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court, CV-10-166) MOORE, J u d g e . On September employee") filed 30, a civil 2010, R u s s e l l action against Threadgill East, ("the Inc. ("the 2120016 employer"), i n the D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court ("the trial court"), s e e k i n g b e n e f i t s under the Alabama W o r k e r s ' Compensation Act ("the his Act"), complaint, had § 25-5-1 et due arising 26, shoulder out left and 20, left o f and i n the After the ankle things, that o f and and due and to right i n the t h a t he had a second course injured accident o f h i s employment on complaint, compensability the trial employee. or vacate J u l y 19, the 2010, set the matter a of the v a r i o u s i n j u r i e s . court entered an order hearing On fully as to J a n u a r y 25, favorable the 2012, to the The e m p l o y e r moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a l t e r , amend, i t s order, which the t r i a l 2012, accident court eventually d i d f i n d i n g t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r was and not from the A p r i l only for 20, for any 26, 2010, 2 claimed liable on the employee i n the A p r i l l u m b a r i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by resulting for an April d e n y i n g the a l l e g a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n the employee's court filed he generally trial employer In l e g , r i g h t arm, 2010, course 1975. answer the 2010. Code t o an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t o f h i s employment on A p r i l right Ala. t h e e m p l o y e e a l l e g e d , among o t h e r i n j u r e d h i s lumbar s p i n e , shoulder his seq., injuries accident. allegedly 2120016 The 2012, e m p l o y e e f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m t h e J u l y 19, order. benefits Because t o which a final SouthernCare, 2009). App. order t h e employee account of h i s A p r i l not that 20, 2 0 1 0 , judgment that d i d not address claimed would I n c . v. C o w a r t , he was e n t i t l e d lumbar i n j u r y , 1 support on the order was appeal. See an 48 So. 3d 632 ( A l a . C i v . App. I n Ex p a r t e Cowabunga, I n c . , 67 So. 3d 136 ( A l a . C i v . 2 0 1 1 ) , a m a j o r i t y o f t h i s c o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h i s c o u r t may e l e c t t o t r e a t an a p p e a l t h a t i s e r r o n e o u s l y the a l l the entry f i l e d following o f a n o n f i n a l judgment i n a w o r k e r s ' compensation c a s e as a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i f a l a t e r w o u l d be an i n a d e q u a t e remedy. In this case, unless appeal this c o u r t c o n s i d e r s t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e employee a t t h i s t i m e by way o f a p e t i t i o n for a writ o f mandamus, t h e e m p l o y e e w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o a p p e a l o n l y a f t e r a f i n a l determination The o r d e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e h a d n o t y e t r e a c h e d maximum m e d i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t on a c c o u n t o f h i s A p r i l 20, 2 0 1 0 , lumbar i n j u r y . Thus, t h e t r i a l court could not assess p e r m a n e n t - d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s a t the time i t entered the J u l y 19, 2012, o r d e r . See Ex p a r t e P h e n i x R e n t a l C t r . , 873 So. 2d 226 ( A l a . 2003) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t c a n n o t a w a r d any p e r m a n e n t - d i s a b i l i t y compensation u n t i l a f t e r employee has r e a c h e d maximum m e d i c a l improvement). The t r i a l court t e n t a t i v e l y s e t t h e c a s e f o r an O c t o b e r 29, 2012, t r i a l on t h e i s s u e o f what p e r m a n e n t - d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s t h e e m p l o y e e m i g h t be e n t i t l e d t o f o r t h e l u m b a r i n j u r y . 1 3 2120016 of the controversy disability regarding a n d any o t h e r the benefits employee's due t h e e m p l o y e e A p r i l 20, 2010, l u m b a r i n j u r y , w h i c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n l y a t an i n d e f i n i t e p o i n t i n t h e f u t u r e . if the t r i a l court forego medical erred, permanent t h e employee for his will occur I n t h e meantime, would have had t o t r e a t m e n t f o r the i n j u r i e s caused by t h e A p r i l 26, 2010, a c c i d e n t , as w e l l as any a d d i t i o n a l c o m p e n s a t i o n due for those i n j u r i e s . B e c a u s e one o f t h e f o r e m o s t p u r p o s e s o f the A c t i s t o assure at the time t h a t i n j u r e d employees r e c e i v e of t h e i r injuries and d i s a b i l i t i e s , benefits when those b e n e f i t s a r e n e e d e d most, s e e Ex p a r t e P u r i t a n B a k i n g Co., 208 Ala. 373, 94 So. 347 (1922), a later appeal would not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e employee i n t h i s case. Thus, we have e l e c t e d t o t r e a t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s a p p e a l as a petition The employee improperly 2010, had back f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. denied accident. essentially argues shoulder. the t r i a l h i s c l a i m t h a t was b a s e d on h i s A p r i l court 26, I n t h a t c l a i m , t h e e m p l o y e e c o n t e n d e d t h a t he f a l l e n a t work w h i l e c o n v a l e s c i n g injury, that thereby At t r i a l , injuring f r o m h i s A p r i l 20, 2010, his left t h e employee a s s e r t e d 4 ankle and right t h a t he h a d a l s o 2120016 i n j u r e d h i s n e c k and 2012, order, rolled employment left court as was trial did the recover trial The workshop. Thus, i n that f a l l . ankle his the r i g h t arm not trial he court the S u b s t a n t i a l evidence the back that the See had door of his that the roll his employee ankle. could benefits for injuries and right to be § 25-5-81(e)(2), reversed evidence."). o f t h e A p r i l 26, A l a . Code 1975 out the i f that finding The his shoulder. ("In i s supported 2010, reviewing 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 not not supports the f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s of the t r i a l c o u r t r e g a r d i n g the circumstances accident. to shall by s u b s t a n t i a l e m p l o y e e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , as he was walking b a c k d o o r o f h i s w o r k s h o p , h i s f o o t s l i p p e d and rolled his ankle, which elbow. Some t e s t i m o n y t h a t the employee had that had he falling. not 19, employee determined employee other a n k l e , n e c k , r i g h t arm, the further decided or that exiting court cause compensation found In i t s J u l y c a u s e d him to fall onto his he right from the w i f e of the employee i n d i c a t e d f a l l e n before. stepped on any From t h a t e v i d e n c e , The employee slippery as w e l l as substance before the photographs t h e s c e n e where t h e f a l l o c c u r r e d , t h e t r i a l 5 admitted court of reasonably 2120016 c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e employment c o n d i t i o n s did not l e g a l l y cause the f a l l but t h a t the employee f e l l a f t e r t a k i n g an awkward s t e p . See Ex parte 2011) ( h o l d i n g t h a t w o r k e r who prove legal So. 3d experiences f a l l may a t work must but employment). The had employee p r e s e n t e d he April fell 20, due 2010, s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g t o weakness i n h i s back i n j u r y . The l e g emanating from full the accident, c o n t r o l and symptoms. Cf. App. (injuries 1985) leg natural Harris, from f a l l from w o r k - r e l a t e d and implying t h a t he movement o f h i s l e f t E r w i n v. 474 So. of fell he left when he f o o t due 2d to those 1125 (Ala. Civ. a t home c a u s e d by w e a k n e s s i n i n j u r y h e l d t o be consequence his employee t e s t i f i e d t h a t f e l t numbness and t i n g l i n g down h i s l e f t l e g i n t o h i s foot j u s t before lost establish (Ala. s h o w i n g f a l l w o u l d n o t have o c c u r r e d where and when i t d i d that not 591 by the and 77 liability for causation Patton, original, c o m p e n s a b l e as d i r e c t compensable injury). However, t h e e m p l o y e r p r e s e n t e d m e d i c a l r e c o r d s d i s p u t i n g t h a t the e m p l o y e e had The trial court, experienced as resolving that dispute the s u c h symptoms b e f o r e finder of fact, was the fall. charged i n t h e e v i d e n c e as t o t h e c a u s e o f 6 with the 2120016 employee's f a l l . 2 2d (Ala. Civ. 1012, 1014 reweigh the 20, 2012] See Edwards v. evidence. Ex S t u t t s , Inc., App. 1995). parte Caldwell, ___ So. 3d ___ , ___ "does review Jesse not permit This [Ms. ( A l a . 2012). this court to court 655 So. may not 1110513 J u l y Our standard reverse the trial 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 ground t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports L a n d e r s v. Lowe's Home C t r s . , I n c . , 14 So. 151 Civ. Contractors, The are Inc., employer predicated e m p l o y e e had prior App. on 2007) 725 So. (citing 2d 292 raises several the e f f e c t of back i n j u r y . fall was (Ala. legal a parte M & 3d 144, D Mech. i s s u e s , a l l of which 1998)). factual finding that the f a l l e n as a r e s u l t o f symptoms r e s u l t i n g f r o m h i s We do not s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports the Ex the a contrary factual finding." (Ala. of not a consider the d i r e c t and trial natural those issues court's because finding that consequence of the The employee c o m p l a i n s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t o r i g i n a l l y f o u n d i n i t s J a n u a r y 2012 o r d e r t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s p r i o r l e g w e a k n e s s had c a u s e d h i s f a l l b u t t h a t i t l a t e r c h a n g e d i t s factual f i n d i n g without having received new evidence. However, a t r i a l c o u r t may r e c o n s i d e r i t s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s any t i m e b e f o r e e n t e r i n g a f i n a l j u d g m e n t and may change t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g new e v i d e n c e . See L a w r e n c e v. L a w r e n c e , [Ms. 2110556, J a n . 18, 2013] So. 3d (Ala. C i v . App. 2 013) . 2 7 2120016 employee's earlier back we reject required to plead l a c k o f employment c a u s a t i o n as an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e . West e m p l o y e e ' s argument t h a t F r a s e r , I n c . v. C a l d w e l l , 3d ___ , ___ n.6. injury. the Similarly, e m p l o y e r was [Ms. the 2100696, J a n . 13, 2012] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) So. ("lack of c a u s a t i o n is n o t an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t o a w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m " ) , rev'd on other Finally, erred 26, the April the employee in attributing 2010, that g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e 23, fall. e m p l o y e e had In maintains record, p h y s i c i a n s t h a t h i s A p r i l 20, symptoms. his The injury trial court to the April 2010, of the right-shoulder employee a c c i d e n t had pain informed on the caused those employee l a t e r c o m p l a i n e d of i n c r e a s i n g p a i n i n r i g h t shoulder J u l y 19, the r e c o r d p l a c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e showed complained that supra. that his right-shoulder A medical 2010. Caldwell, 2012, f o l l o w i n g t h e A p r i l 26, order, In the court denied b e n e f i t s f o r the t r i a l 2010, fall. the r i g h t - s h o u l d e r i n j u r y b e c a u s e t h e e m p l o y e e had n o t p r o v e n t h a t the April 26, However, t h e 2010, fall had record contains April 26, 2010, right shoulder. fall a r i s e n out no his employment. evidence i n d i c a t i n g that c a u s e d a new injury Assuming t h a t the A p r i l 8 of to 20, the 2010, the employee's accident 2120016 originally injured t h e employee's r i g h t s h o u l d e r , a reinjury o r a g g r a v a t i o n o f t h a t i n j u r y w o u l d i t s e l f be c o m p e n s a b l e i f it was b r o u g h t on b y t h e e m p l o y e e ' s e n g a g i n g i n an a c t i v i t y that i s customary i n l i g h t activity parte d i d not d i r e c t l y arise even i f that o u t o f t h e employment. Ex P i k e C n t y . Comm'n, 740 So. 2d 1080 ( A l a . 1999) ( h o l d i n g that e m p l o y e e who a g g r a v a t e d b a c k i n j u r y b y l i f t i n g home was discovered denying solely arise entitled to compensation after aggravation). benefits on t h e g r o u n d t h a t shoulder i n j u r y . issue the writ, directing portion of i t s July employee's disk right-shoulder injury d i d not employment. we deny t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t as i t p e r t a i n s In that f o r herniated t h e A p r i l 26, 2010, f a l l o u t o f t h e employee's mandamus e x c e p t baby a t Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f o r t h e employee's B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , of of h i s condition, regard, t o t h e employee's right- we g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n a n d the t r i a l court t o vacate that 19, 2012, o r d e r d e n y i n g b e n e f i t s f o r t h e right-shoulder injury on the ground that the e m p l o y e e d i d n o t p r o v e t h a t t h e A p r i l 26, 2010, f a l l a r o s e o u t o f h i s employment. find that We do n o t h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l the A p r i l 20, 2010, a c c i d e n t 9 court must caused the r i g h t - 2120016 shoulder finding April i n j u r y ; we m e r e l y h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l that court erred i n t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e employee t o p r o v e 26, 2010, f a l l that the a r o s e o u t o f h i s employment n e c e s s a r i l y rendered t h e r i g h t - s h o u l d e r i n j u r y noncompensable. PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 10 Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . ,

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.