Albert Dean Gore v. Lafarge North America, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/19/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120057 A l b e r t Dean Gore v. Lafarge North America, Inc. Appeal from Shelby C i r c u i t (CV-08-995) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . A l b e r t Dean Gore a p p e a l s f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e S h e l b y C i r c u i t Court ("the trial court") finding that a work-related i n j u r y t o Gore r e s u l t e d i n a 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 o f 10% and awarding w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s accordingly. 2120057 The record indicates the Lafarge North America, Inc. operator. On February following. Gore worked for ( " L a f a r g e " ) , as a h e a v y - e q u i p m e n t 12, 2008, Gore was operating C a t e r p i l l a r brand b u l l d o z e r at a quarry. The b u l l d o z e r h a d enclosed steel cab that was reinforced with beams. lime bulldozer height and was stopped, of about testified cement that 30 rocks the feet were crushed directly being fed. r o c k was onto his shift f o r the w o r k e r s ' compensation day, but measured between the doctor time d i d not prescribed he visited workers' February reveal narcotic 14, compensation Gore Lafarge's d o c t o r t h e n e x t day, c o m p l a i n i n g o f p a i n pain 2008, the doctor, The X - r a y s taken detectable injuries. any r e l e a s e d him t o r e t u r n t o l i g h t On 10 cab o f t h e b u l l d o z e r , i n h i s n e c k , u p p e r b a c k , and r i g h t s h o u l d e r . at a Gore s t r i k i n g h i m on h i s r i g h t s i d e , l e g , s h o u l d e r , and n e c k . completed the from the b u l l d o z e r . some o f t h e r o c k s , w h i c h and 12 i n c h e s i n d i a m e t e r , e n t e r e d t h e which While dumped an Gore p o s i t i o n e d the b u l l d o z e r under a chute or tube through crushed a The medication for Gore and visited the duty. day Gore after he visited his family p h y s i c i a n f o r c o m p l a i n t s o f p a i n s i m i l a r t o t h o s e he h a d made 2 2120057 to the workers' medication compensation doctor, t o h e l p him w i t h h i s p a i n . and he requested Gore t o l d h i s f a m i l y p h y s i c i a n t h a t he d i d n o t know t h e c a u s e o f h i s p a i n , and he did not divulge compensation that doctor prescribed a r e f i l l he had t h e day before. In began to see a workers' His family physician o f t h e p a i n m e d i c a t i o n L o r t a b , w h i c h Gore had been t a k i n g i n t h e months 2008, a c c i d e n t been l e a d i n g up t o t h e F e b r u a r y 12, ("the a c c i d e n t " ) . June 2008, Gore was treatment with Dr. still e x p e r i e n c i n g p a i n , and he Colburn O c c u p a t i o n a l C l i n i c i n Birmingham. Maher at St. Vincent's I n t h e summer o f 2008, Dr. Maher h a d Gore " t a k e n o f f work," and Gore has n o t w o r k e d s i n c e that time. The record 2007, up t o and i n c l u d i n g before the accident, i n d i c a t e s t h a t f r o m December 20, February Gore had hydrocodone, a n a r c o t i c p a i n k i l l e r , a l s o had taken s h o r t - t e r m d i s a b i l i t y the accident the accident. surgery also most recent being 8, 2008, i . e . , f o u r d a y s his prescription refilled for ten times. leave three times f o u r months before before the Gore t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t o o k t h e l e a v e once t o have on h i s e l b o w and a g a i n when h i s l u n g c o l l a p s e d . said He that he took time 3 o f f from work when he He was 2120057 c o n v i c t e d o f what t h e p a r t i e s c a l l e d " d o c t o r v i s i t i n g several doctors shopping," i . e . , to obtain multiple prescriptions f o r Xanax. At the hearing, Gore acknowledged during his d e p o s i t i o n he h a d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n e v e r e x p e r i e n c e d back or neck p a i n b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t . Joe Archer, testified that However, G o r e ' s s u p e r v i s o r , that, before the accident, Gore h a d a problem w i t h "excessive absenteeism," or absences t h a t was n o t aware o f i n a d v a n c e . tenure 2008, Archer s a i d that throughout h i s as G o r e ' s s u p e r v i s o r , t h a t i s , f r o m 2003 u n t i l shoulder, about h i s neck, and about h i s f o o t . " job at Lafarge complaints In before about about h i s A r c h e r s a i d t h a t he h a d l e f t the accident; therefore, the addition, the accident. Gore's medical records December 2002 he v i s i t e d C h i l t o n F a m i l y back h i s back, Gore made t o A r c h e r a b o u t n e c k a n d b a c k p a i n h a d t o have been made b e f o r e of January Gore w o u l d s a y t h a t he was p h y s i c a l l y u n a b l e t o work, "complaining his Lafarge pain. At that time, Gore indicate Medicine was complaining referred c h i r o p r a c t o r a n d was p r e s c r i b e d t h e n a r c o t i c L o r t a b . Gore was t r e a t e d f o r " n e r v e s " that i n to a I n 2004 a n d p a i n , w e a k n e s s , a n d numbness 4 2120057 i n h i s b a c k and arms. Then, on December 4, 2 0 0 7 - - t h r e e months b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t G o r e v i s i t e d Dr. Howard c o m p l a i n i n g o f "a l o t of back p a i n . " for I n J a n u a r y 2008, he r e t u r n e d t o Dr. Howard c o n t i n u i n g back p a i n . On January 29, weeks b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t , Gore a g a i n saw 2008, about Dr. Howard f o r p a i n r a d i a t i n g from h i s neck t o o t h e r p a r t s o f h i s body, h i s chest w a l l . It i s not study was from performed; r e t u r n e d t o Dr. which including Dr. Howard o r d e r e d a n e r v e - c o n d u c t i o n clear the r e c o r d when however, on the showed r a d i c u l o p a t h y , a n e r v e study. nerve-conduction February Howard t o o b t a i n t h e two results 28, 2008, of t h a t condition, Gore study, at h i s left s e v e n t h t h o r a c i c v e r t e b r a and " s e v e r e " b i l a t e r a l c a r p a l t u n n e l syndrome. In addition c o n t i n u e d t o be pain 2008, an was MRI t r e a t e d by t r e a t e d by w o r k e r s ' i n h i s neck, arthritis Gore to being was right shoulder, performed that Dr. Howard, Gore also compensation doctors f o r and mid-back. indicated that On May Gore 2, had i n h i s n e c k , as w e l l as r a d i c u l o p a t h y i n h i s n e c k . referred to Dr. Maher, Vincent's Occupational C l i n i c , a neurosurgeon for continued 5 at treatment. St. 2120057 Dr. Maher every l e v e l neck. testified that Gore h a d a r t h r i t i s at o f h i s s p i n e a n d t h a t i t was most s e v e r e i n h i s G o r e a l s o s u f f e r e d f r o m bone s p u r s a n d p i n c h e d i n h i s neck. remove several disks and the bone c o m p r e s s i n g t h e n e r v e s i n Gore's neck. procedure, Dr. Maher said, was a spurs Dr. bone that were graft designed to f o u r neck bones Dr. Maher a l s o p u t a t i t a n i u m p l a t e i n G o r e ' s n e c k . Maher was "underwhelmed" w i t h t h e r a t e a t w h i c h t h e b o n e s i n G o r e ' s n e c k were g r o w i n g a f t e r testified that experiencing months pain, so after Dr. the Maher p h y s i c i a n f o r p a i n management. Maher surgery The s e c o n d p a r t o f t h e m a i n t a i n t h e a l i g n m e n t o f t h e neck and f u s e together. nerves A f t e r more c o n s e r v a t i v e t r e a t m e n t was u n a b l e t o r e l i e v e t h e p a i n i n G o r e ' s n e c k , D r . Maher p e r f o r m e d to almost said, two o f t h e t h r e e t h e bone g r a f t . surgery Gore referred him was to He still another A y e a r a f t e r t h e s u r g e r y , Dr. levels of vertebrae n e c k where t h e g r a f t h a d b e e n done h a d n o t f u s e d . i n Gore's Ultimately, a s e c o n d s u r g e r y was p e r f o r m e d on S e p t e m b e r 28, 2010, i n an e f f o r t to " r e v i s e " the fusion. The m e t a l p l a t e t h a t h a d b e e n i n s e r t e d d u r i n g t h e f i r s t s u r g e r y was removed a n d o t h e r s c r e w s and "instrumentation" were inserted 6 in Gore's cervical 2120057 vertebrae. D r . Maher s a i d t h a t Gore's neck p a i n improved. Gore a f t e r t h e s e c o n d a f t e r the second As D r . Maher c o n t i n u e d surgery, he d e t e r m i n e d d e v e l o p e d a new bone s p u r i n h i s n e c k . s u f f e r neck Dr. Gore assigned Dr. ordered f o r Gore. placed at After maximum fused, " i t would [such as] a functional-capacity t h e FCE was medical Gore h a d to turning, such a c t i v i t y that activity light-duty work, require frequent doing w o u l d be " v e r y or d r i v i n g . b u t he ("MMI") and r a t i n g o f 20%. to return anything to are activity with heavy W i t h f o u r l e v e l s o f f u s i o n , D r . Maher challenging." he d i d n o t b e l i e v e mechanical D r . Maher l e v e l s of vertebrae be i n c r e d i b l y h a r d driving, evaluation completed, improvement t h a t when t h r e e mechanical operations." testified that Gore h a s c o n t i n u e d him a p e r m a n e n t - p a r t i a l - i m p a i r m e n t Maher e x p l a i n e d said, t o monitor pain. Maher ("FCE") procedure said that Gore He b e l i e v e d that, even D r . Maher could Gore then, perform could Gore do would b r e a k s s o t h a t he i s n o t i n one p o s i t i o n t o o long. On J a n u a r y Gore's neck "solid 6, 2012, D r . Maher p e r f o r m e d a CT s c a n on fusion." and d e t e r m i n e d that, 7 at that time, Gore had a 2120057 As to the initially testified degenerative "clearly him, cause and of Gore's that although congenital a pinched nerve neck on the history in his that Gore conditions, Gore Dr. Maher suffered there neck from the through t h i s whole p r o c e s s . " based issues, from was also moment I Dr. Maher t e s t i f i e d had provided to met that, him, he b e l i e v e d t h a t the a c c i d e n t caused the p i n c h e d nerve. Later i n his he the physical i n h i s n e c k , b a c k , and shoulder deposition, however, p r o b l e m s Gore was experiencing c o u l d have o c c u r r e d s t a t e d t h a t i t was from acute," subjective accident and acknowledged that e v e n i f t h e a c c i d e n t had n o t h a p p e n e d . "very he He challenging to separate degenerative reiterated statements that when c o n n e c t i n g t h a t he had relied on Gore's h i s n e c k p r o b l e m s began w i t h those problems w i t h the the accident. In a d d i t i o n to the m e d i c a l h i s t o r y d e s c r i b e d above, the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t Gore r e c e i v e d f u r t h e r t r e a t m e n t f o r n e c k pain after June 10, he 2010. fell on that v i s i t , playing with his granddaughter on Gore went t o t h e emergency room f o r t r e a t m e n t on t h a t o c c a s i o n , a visit while then mentioned the June 25, 2010. Dr. fall t o Dr. Maher Maher t e s t i f i e d that, during during Gore c o m p l a i n e d o f w o r s e n i n g n e c k p a i n and p a i n i n 8 2120057 his r i g h t shoulder, may have " w o r s e n e d " G o r e ' s n e c k c o n d i t i o n . In and Dr. Maher was c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e f a l l h i s complaint, sustained in depression. complained claimed accident the Gore caused Gore's of medical depression the him to records during l e a d i n g up t o t h e a c c i d e n t . that at injuries suffer indicate least the trial the c o u r t n o t e d Gore's c o m p l a i n t s five years l e a d i n g up r e c e i p t of short-term eight years court court also relievers noted i n the Furthermore, Gore's two for doctor shopping and e x a m p l e , Gore t e s t i f i e d in fact, Gore's up to the i t had trial pain accident. grounds on b a s e d on h i s c o n v i c t i o n i n c o n s i s t e n t testimony; convictions. 9 The narcotic t h a t he h a d one DUI he h a d f o u r DUI t h e most of found that which t o q u e s t i o n Gore's c r e d i b i l i t y , as h i s use leading court as w e l l the accident. continuous months the t r i a l o f b a c k and n e c k p a i n i n on t h r e e o c c a s i o n s , r e c e n t b e i n g o n l y f o u r months b e f o r e partial In t h e judgment, the to the accident, disability he the t r i a l A f t e r the t r i a l , as a r e s u l t o f t h e a c c i d e n t . from that e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g t h a t Gore h a d s u f f e r e d a p e r m a n e n t disability he The for c o n v i c t i o n when, trial court also 2120057 r e f e r r e d t o G o r e ' s " p l a i n m i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s " when to h i s treating physicians i n this case. The t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e "several Based alternative theories" on t h e e v i d e n c e f o r Gore's presented, a permanent accident. The t r i a l Gore an i m p a i r m e n t however, solely said, the t r i a l total demonstrated "present the t r i a l t h a t Gore h a d n o t c a r r i e d h i s b u r d e n suffered talking court state." concluded o f p r o v i n g t h a t he h a d disability as a result of the c o u r t n o t e d t h a t D r . Maher h a d a s s i g n e d rating court on t h e o n - t h e - j o b t h e 20% i m p a i r m e n t o f 20% t o t h e body said, that figure as a was whole; not injury. Instead, the t r i a l figure a s s i g n e d b y D r . Maher based court took i n t o a c c o u n t a l l o f Gore's p r e v i o u s i n j u r i e s and "[t]he disability rating also considers the possibility that [Gore's] degenerative and c o n g e n i t a l p r o b l e m s c o u l d have b e e n e x a c e r b a t e d b y t h e o n - t h e - j o b i n j u r y b u t t h a t t h e y a l s o w o r s e n e d as a r e s u l t of the aging process i n the intervening f o u r y e a r s b e t w e e n t h e d a t e o f t h e a c c i d e n t a n d when he r e a c h e d [MMI]. Given these f a c t s , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e o n - t h e - j o b i n j u r y i s b u t one f a c t o r i n h i s present d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g , but, standing alone, i s not t h e cause o f h i s p r e s e n t s t a t e . " The t r i a l c o u r t t h e n f o u n d " t h a t t h e [ F e b r u a r y 12, 2008,] injury to the p l a i n t i f f resulted 10 in a permanent partial 2120057 d i s a b i l i t y o f 10% and a w a r d e d b e n e f i t s Code "consistent with Ala. [1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) . " Gore t i m e l y a p p e a l e d f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t . The standard compensation this cases i s w e l l "Section the standard cases: court uses to review workers' settled: 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s of review i n workers' compensation "'(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 ( 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 ) ) . " White Tiger G r a p h i c s , I n c . v. ( A l a . C i v . App. Clemons, 88 So. 3d 908, 2012). Moreover, "'[f]or an i n j u r y t o be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, the employee must e s t a b l i s h b o t h l e g a l and m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n . ' Ex 11 910 2120057 p a r t e M o n c r i e f , 627 So. 2d 385, 388 ( A l a . 1993) . 'Once l e g a l c a u s a t i o n has b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d , i . e . , t h a t an a c c i d e n t a r o s e o u t o f , and i n t h e c o u r s e o f employment, m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n must be e s t a b l i s h e d , i . e . , t h a t the a c c i d e n t caused the i n j u r y f o r which r e c o v e r y i s s o u g h t . ' Hammons v. R o s e s S t o r e s , I n c . , 547 So. 2d 883, 885 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . " Ex parte (Ala. S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , 873 So. 2d 1121 2003). Gore c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l evidentiary condition standard and the c o u r t a p p l i e d the i n c o r r e c t regarding burden of a worker's proof the preexisting worker demonstrating h i s or her c l a i m of permanent t o t a l Specifically, Gore considered his asserts that prior complaints the trial of pain p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s and u s e d t h o s e his 1116, award of b e n e f i t s . B e c a u s e he able improperly depression complaints was in disability. court and has to as to "offset" do his job n o r m a l l y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t , Gore s a y s , t h e r e was p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n t h a t the t r i a l purposes of d e t e r m i n i n g workers' points factor" out t h a t , by c o n t r i b u t i n g to his court could consider for compensation b e n e f i t s . determining no that the disability, accident the was trial Gore "one court n e c e s s a r i l y f o u n d m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n , "as t h e a c c i d e n t n e e d n o t 12 2120057 have b e e n t h e s o l e c a u s e , o r t h e d o m i n a n t c a u s e , b u t m e r e l y a c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e o f G o r e ' s p e r m a n e n t and t o t a l Gore c i t e s E a s t e r l y v. B e a u l i e u 397 this of ( A l a . 1997), i n support disability." of America, Inc., of h i s c o n t e n t i o n . necessitated therefore, was compensable statutes. The holding i s s u e i n the present by a under So. 2d In E a s t e r l y , c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s " d i s c i t i s " was treatment 703 the result work-related injury the compensation workers' i n E a s t e r l y i s not and, applicable to the case. "'A t r i a l c o u r t may i n f e r m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n from c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , b e f o r e the a c c i d e n t , t h e w o r k e r was w o r k i n g n o r m a l l y w i t h no d i s a b l i n g symptoms b u t t h a t , i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r w a r d s , those symptoms a p p e a r e d and have p e r s i s t e d e v e r since. See B o i s e C a s c a d e C o r p . v. J a c k s o n , 997 So. 2d 1042, 1047 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( c i t i n g Alamo v. PCH H o t e l s & R e s o r t s , I n c . , 987 So. 2d 598, 603 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (Moore, J., concurring specially)).' W a t e r s B r o s . C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . v. W i m b e r l e y , 20 So. 3d 125, 134 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) . See a l s o E q u i t y G r o u p - A l a b a m a D i v . v. H a r r i s , 55 So. 3d 299, 311 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . " McAbee C o n s t r . , So. 3d We agree I n c . v. A l l d a y , [Ms. , with ( A l a . C i v . App. Gore's 2110461, A p r i l 19, 2013] 2013). conclusion that, in explicitly f i n d i n g t h a t Gore " s u f f e r e d a 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 a r e s u l t of the a c c i d e n t , " the t r i a l c o u r t concluded 13 as t h a t Gore 2120057 had proven medical causation. I t i s the extent t o which G o r e ' s d i s a b i l i t y c a n be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e a c c i d e n t t h a t i s a t issue. before Gore a s s e r t s t h a t he h a d n o t s u f f e r e d a n e c k injury t h e a c c i d e n t ; t h e r e f o r e , he a p p e a r s t o s a y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o a t t r i b u t e a l l o f h i s n e c k c o m p l a i n t s the to i n j u r y he s u s t a i n e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t . However, t h i s neck condition accident. which t r i a l before i s not a case i n which Gore's p r e e x i s t i n g was Opinions latent of t h i s or on-the-job the c o m p e n s a t i o n t o e m p l o y e e s who, accidents, of which they displayed complained symptoms consistent with accidents. F o r e x a m p l e , i n P r o c t o r v. R.R. Dawson B r i d g e Co., 757 those before c o u r t have a f f i r m e d j u d g m e n t s i n c o u r t s have d e n i e d their asymptomatic So. 2d 446 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , C l a r e n c e as a w e l d e r f o r R.R. Dawson B r i d g e Company. while welding the after their P r o c t o r worked On June 24, 1997, f o r Dawson B r i d g e , P r o c t o r began s u f f e r i n g f r o m symptoms of heat weakness, headaches, breathing, and s w e a t i n g . exhaustion, nausea, including cramps, Although chest he r e t u r n e d dizziness, pains, heavy t o work t h e n e x t d a y , P r o c t o r a g a i n b e g a n t o s u f f e r f r o m t h e symptoms o f heat exhaustion a n d h a d t o l e a v e work e a r l y . 14 2120057 On June physician, Dr. exhaustion. w h i c h she health risk. a 1997, Ivana On Kajdos, J u l y 30, went who 1997, Dr. to see diagnosed his him She regular Proctor facing a o p i n e d t h a t P r o c t o r was job within his regular capacity.'" Id. at sued Dawson Bridge Dr. e p i s o d e s of heat e x h a u s t i o n "trigger" 448. event that Proctor heat exhaustion, he but Bridge, t h a t P r o c t o r had, expressing point for workers' compensation i s what t r i g g e r e d started not however, before that those episodes served testified was On Kajdos t e s t i f i e d that Proctor Proctor's physical that, before aware t h a t he n e v e r been t r e a t e d f o r t h a t Dawson 447. to Id. emphysema, a t h e r o s c l e r o s i s , and h i g h b l o o d p r e s s u r e had in significant " ' t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d at t h i s job.'" h i s i n a b i l i t y t o work. at heat " ' t o t a l l y unable b e n e f i t s , c l a i m i n g t h a t the heat exhaustion Id. with Dr. K a j d o s w r o t e a s e c o n d l e t t e r b e l i e f t h a t P r o c t o r was t o keep any a family Kajdos wrote a l e t t e r physical exertion without S e p t e m b e r 4, 1997, her Proctor s t a t e d t h a t P r o c t o r c o u l d not t o l e r a t e extreme heat coupled with keep 26, the had had the as decline. episodes emphysema of and condition. presented evidence indicating i n f a c t , e x p e r i e n c e d s i m i l a r symptoms b e f o r e 15 2120057 t h e June 1997 episodes. emphysema when she Dr. K a j d o s t e s t i f i e d t h a t P r o c t o r had first began December 1995-- a y e a r and e x h a u s t i o n began. seeing him as a patient in a h a l f b e f o r e the episodes Additionally, two of P r o c t o r ' s of heat coworkers t e s t i f i e d t h a t , even b e f o r e s u f f e r i n g from heat e x h a u s t i o n i n June 1997, P r o c t o r had c o m p l a i n e d had frequent breaks, taken had c o u g h e d and s w e a t e d e v e n i n c o o l e r months. This court noted o f n a u s e a and stomachaches, wheezed, and had Id. that "Dr. K a j d o s a d m i t t e d t h a t h e r o p i n i o n t h a t t h e e p i s o d e s o f h e a t e x h a u s t i o n i n June 1997 t r i g g e r e d the employee's p r e s e n t d i s a b l e d c o n d i t i o n i s based upon t h e e m p l o y e e ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t h i s symptoms d i d not appear u n t i l the episodes of heat e x h a u s t i o n i n June 1997. Dr. K a j d o s c o n c e d e d t h a t i f t h e symptoms e x p e r i e n c e d by t h e e m p l o y e e were p r e s e n t b e f o r e t h e e p i s o d e s o f h e a t e x h a u s t i o n , t h e n she w o u l d n e e d t o s e a r c h f o r o t h e r causes f o r the employee's p r e s e n t complaints." Id. at 448-49. In light of that evidence, this court c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t t h a t P r o c t o r had sustained evidence. Inc., I d . a t 449. 611 alleged inability a c o m p e n s a b l e i n j u r y was So. that to 2d a 1098 foot work was See supported a l s o Wright ( A l a . C i v . App. injury was denied 16 the v. by Trailers, (employee primary compensation substantial Dorsey 1992) not who cause of his because he had 2120057 received medical a t t e n t i o n for foot ailment the months before accident). In this case, accident, Gore symptoms. The that Gore's the was not evidence facts in this neck Proctor had problems suffered heat exhaustion. that, before the unable to work because of Archer stated Gore's c o m p l a i n t s were " e x c e s s i v e . " weeks Howard Archer's before the for pain narcotic accident. pain were in accident, by neck, Gore back, absences and from a preexisting i n d i c a t i n g that the episodes at shoulder work sought his the days pain. such tend to about two from Dr. Gore was leading was with treatment neck. of Lafarge, frequently i n d i c a t i n g that, Gore the disabling Gore's m e d i c a l records the K a j d o s i n P r o c t o r , Dr. Maher i n t h i s case t h a t the up taking to neck problems c o i n c i d e d w i t h the a c c i d e n t t o him. no Gore's s u p e r v i s o r r a d i a t i n g from relievers before a t l e a s t as i n d i c a t i v e caused t e s t i f i e d t h a t he b a s e d h i s o p i n i o n provided with facts i n Proctor statement, accident, L i k e Dr. that, f r o m emphysema b e f o r e testified corroborate normally case are Here, A r c h e r , that indicates working c o n d i t i o n i n h i s n e c k as t h e had two onset of Gore's on t h e h i s t o r y Gore Dr. Maher a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t , b a s e d 17 2120057 on information t h a t Gore was he with his doctors. The c o u r t e x p l i c i t l y f o u n d t h a t G o r e ' s c r e d i b i l i t y had trial not l e a r n e d during h i s d e p o s i t i o n , i t appeared always forthcoming been impeached through h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r "doctor i n c o n s i s t e n t testimony, his treating physicians." his his "plain misrepresentations and shopping," to B a s e d on the record before conclude that s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports conclusion from t h a t , at the time of the a p r e e x i s t i n g neck from b e i n g able condition t o do h i s j o b f o r Gore c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l not permanently and permanent p a r t i a l injuries he totally disability received s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. in often court's Gore suffered prevented him court's f i n d i n g t h a t he was disabled accident and 10% as was had sustained a r e s u l t of not supported the trial including the facts disability b e n e f i t s ; t h a t h i s t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n was court that ignored he was undisputed participating the by awarded evidence, Social Security of o p i n i o n t h a t Gore c o u l d n o t work; t h a t , a t t h e t i m e o f was a Gore a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t , i n r e a c h i n g i t s decision, he we Lafarge. of only the the t r i a l accident, that us, in a s t i l l taking pain medications pain-management program the trial, and was t h a t p r e v e n t e d him f r o m d r i v i n g ; 18 2120057 and t h a t h i s d e p r e s s i o n h a d become w o r s e . a l o n e does n o t p r o v e c a u s a t i o n . However, d i s a b i l i t y M c C u t c h e o n v . Champion Int'l C o r p . , 623 So. 2d 742 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . N e i t h e r L a f a r g e n o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i s p u t e d t h a t Gore i s u n a b l e t o work. Lafarge's p o s i t i o n throughout t h i s litigation has been t h a t Gore's neck c o n d i t i o n p r e e x i s t e d t h e a c c i d e n t and that, therefore, his inability r e s u l t of that accident. i s not the i n s u r e r o f an e m p l o y e e ' s h e a l t h s h o u l d bear o n l y t h e c o s t s o f compensating employees f o r accidents that employment." 265 now As o u r supreme c o u r t h a s s t a t e d , "an employer i s not the a b s o l u t e and t o work arise out of Ex p a r t e and Trinity I n d u s . , I n c . , 680 So. 2d 262, ( A l a . 1996) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . Proctor, supra, and W r i g h t , s u p r a , i n the course of their B a s e d on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f the t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Gore's p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n p r e v e n t e d from being able to work compensation b e n e f i t s a t a l l . and denied "The t r i a l believes, workers' t h a t was a t t r i b u t a b l e i n j u r i e s he s u s t a i n e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t . not cross-appeal any I n s t e a d , however, i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Gore h a d a 10% d i s a b i l i t y did him Gore to challenge that We n o t e t h a t to the Lafarge finding. c o u r t i s f r e e t o choose which e v i d e n c e i t and when conflicting evidence is 19 2120057 p r e s e n t e d , the f i n d i n g s of the t r i a l c o u r t , which has the duty to resolve the conflicts, are c o n c l u s i v e , i f s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . Acustar, I n c . v. S t a p l e s , 598 So. 2d 943 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 2 ) ; S e i f e r t v. H o u l d i t c h , 583 So. 2d 274 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1991) . The t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t b o u n d by e x p e r t o p i n i o n s i n w o r k e r s ' compensation c a s e s , even i f those o p i n i o n s are u n c o n t r o v e r t e d . The trial c o u r t i s f r e e to c o n s i d e r a l l of the evidence, 'as w e l l as i t s own o b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e w i t n e s s e s . The t r i a l c o u r t may t h e n i n t e r p r e t what i t has h e a r d and observed, according t o i t s own best judgment.' G i b s o n v. S o u t h e r n S t o n e Co., 518 So. 2d 730, 731 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ; see a l s o A r m s t r o n g v. L e w i s & A s s o c i a t e s C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., 469 So. 2d 605 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1984) . I t i s the t r i a l c o u r t ' s duty to determine the e x t e n t or percentage of d i s a b i l i t y b a s e d on a l l t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t and i t s own observations. Genpak C o r p . v. G i b s o n , 534 So. 2d 312 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . " Reed v. James R. Civ. So. App. 2d F i n c h e r T i m b e r Co., 1 9 9 5 ) ; see 265, 267 also Fontaine ( A l a . C i v . App. extent of disability, i t i s the review a l l t h e e v i d e n c e and 659 So. Trailer 1992) duty of 2d 660, 663 Co. Hurt, 607 determining the ("In the t o make i t s own As m e n t i o n e d , i n i t s j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l f o u n d t h a t Gore had and totally d i s a b l e d as the a c c i d e n t . been The impeached, assertion failed t h a t he t o p r o v e t h a t he a result of i n j u r i e s v. trial (Ala. court observations."). court expressly was permanently he received i n t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t Gore's t e s t i m o n y and had i t obviously not had did not believe problems w i t h h i s neck 20 to had Gore's before 2120057 the accident. The determination trial court t h a t Gore had whole encompassed i n j u r i e s i.e., in also a 20% found t h a t the accident. Gore ailments s u f f e r e d throughout Gore's also to Before the pain work i n h i s neck, because accident, relievers, relievers and, and neck, Gore had in he fact, almost every first he alone," sustained in inability t o work. accident the was sustained and t h a t he shoulder o f use taking saw him, and "excessive" of was pain. narcotic narcotic to the a c c i d e n t . the t r i a l accident an complaints back, Dr. pain Maher Gore had a r t h r i t i s at t h a t i t was l e v e l o f h i s s p i n e , and "Standing had a history i n t h e d a y s l e a d i n g up t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when he neck. of life, s u f f e r e d from d e g e n e r a t i v e number o f a b s e n c e s f r o m work b a s e d on unable Maher's i m p a i r m e n t t o t h e body as a i t i n c l u d e d i n j u r i e s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e Gore had congenital the Dr. worst i n h i s c o u r t found, the were "not the cause" Nonetheless, the trial court r e s u l t e d i n a permanent p a r t i a l injuries of Gore's found that disability of 10%. Based on the record s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports before us, the t r i a l we conclude court's finding t h e i n j u r i e s Gore s u f f e r e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t d i d n o t r e n d e r 21 that that him 2120057 permanently challenge and that totally f i n d i n g , we partial-disability Finally, remanded. returned his contends therefore, Specifically, he t o work, t h e t r i a l l o s s of a b i l i t y Gadsden, 794 his and to earn. So. 2d 395 Because conclude that r a t i n g i s due Gore "defective," disabled. t o be that he t h e 10% says, court final this that, was judgment case because required must he is be never to determine Gore c i t e s L i p s c o m b ( A l a . C i v . App. permanent- affirmed. the argues Lafarge d i d not v. C i t y o f 2000), i n support of contention. In this court q u o t e d W a s h i n g t o n v. T y s o n F o o d s , I n c . , 659 So. 2d 670, 670-71 (Ala. Lipscomb, C i v . App. the case relied on by Gore, 1995): " ' T h i s c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t , i n o r d e r t o award workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s , a t r i a l c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e has s u f f e r e d a l o s s o f a b i l i t y t o e a r n as a r e s u l t o f an o n - t h e - j o b i n j u r y and that the percentage of bodily i m p a i r m e n t c a n n o t be t h e b a s i s f o r a w a r d i n g compensation.'" (794 So. 2d a t 398.) F u r t h e r m o r e § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) g . , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s that f o r a l l cases i n v o l v i n g permanent p a r t i a l disabilities t h a t a r e n o t s c h e d u l e d - m e m b e r i n j u r i e s , " c o m p e n s a t i o n s h a l l be 22 2120057 66 2/3 percent earnings of of the the d i f f e r e n c e between the worker at the time average weekly earnings he o r she of the Gore's Therefore, remand the suffered injury we he reverse cause any injury for loss of sustained a outside judgment of determination ability in the weekly and the in his or (Emphasis added.) falls the injury i s able to earn her p a r t i a l l y d i s a b l e d c o n d i t i o n Here, average to earn of the of as accident. the schedule. trial court and whether Gore has of the a result Regarding the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c o m p e n s a t i o n b a s e d on t h e e m p l o y e e ' s l o s s o f ability to earn, Judge T e r r y Moore has w r i t t e n : " O b v i o u s l y , i f t h e e m p l o y e e can p e r f o r m t h e full r a n g e o f work as b e f o r e t h e i n j u r y , t h e e m p l o y e e may c o n t i n u e t o e a r n t h e same amount o f wages w i t h no l o s s of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . L i k e w i s e , i f the employee i s r e s t r i c t e d from p e r f o r m i n g p h y s i c a l or mental f u n c t i o n s w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e e w o u l d n e v e r use f o r p r o f i t anyway, t h e c o u r t w o u l d be j u s t i f i e d i n denying compensation f o r l o s s of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . F o r e x a m p l e , a b o o k k e e p e r who has l o s t t h e a b i l i t y to lift heavy weights should s t i l l be a b l e to perform the essential f u n c t i o n s of bookkeeping w i t h o u t l o s s o f wages, w h i l e t h a t same r e s t r i c t i o n may devastate a c o n s t r u c t i o n worker or manual laborer. Thus, i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e court i s o l a t e the i n j u r e d employee's p r e - i n j u r y e a r n i n g a b i l i t y b e f o r e making a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the e f f e c t o f t h e i n j u r y on t h a t e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . " 1 T e r r y A. 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 § 13:22 (footnote omitted). 23 (1998) 2120057 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. P i t t m a n and Donaldson, J J . , concur. Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , concur writings. 24 i n the r e s u l t , without

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.