DuBose Construction Company, LLC v. James Simmons

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 08/16/2013 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 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120440 DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, LLC v. James Simmons Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-05-2166.80) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, LLC ("DuBose"), a p p e a l s a judgment compensation i n favor of action. This have b e e n b e f o r e this James Simmons i s the t h i r d court i n t h i s i n this time matter. these from workers' parties 2120440 The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s the I n 2005, Simmons was f e l l and w o r k i n g as t r i a l court entered Simmons had as a Co. v. s u e d DuBose f o r w o r k e r s ' injury. After a permanent p a r t i a l and a b i l i t y t o e a r n and Constr. He he a trial, the a j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 13, 2007, f i n d i n g t h a t suffered whole for that information. a f o r e m a n f o r DuBose when i n j u r e d h i s r i g h t knee. compensation b e n e f i t s body following relevant a 15% permanent disability partial So. 2d 1140, 1141 See the of loss awarded b e n e f i t s a c c o r d i n g l y . Simmons, 989 to his DuBose (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). DuBose erroneously appealed, awarded contending that and, therefore, outside forth Simmons had of the Simmons w o r k e r s ' b a s e d on a l o s s o f e a r n i n g was that capacity. sustained t h a t he was those permitted i n § 25-5-57(a), A l a . not an scheduled court member reversed the should Id. i n j u r y to h i s treated Id. right knee benefits After set setting w h e t h e r an i n j u r y t o as trial "Given the trial court's findings concerning whether 2 benefits compensation schedule Code 1975. judgment of the had DuBose's p o s i t i o n e n t i t l e d to recover i n the be court compensation f o r t h the a p p l i c a b l e t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g a trial unscheduled, court, w r i t i n g : failure to make Simmons's injury this 2120440 entitled him t o workers' compensation b e n e f i t s o u t s i d e t h e s c h e d u l e , we must r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion." Id. a t 1143. On J u n e 17, 2008, f o u r months a f t e r its this court o p i n i o n i n DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e t r i a l the case i n i t s e n t i r e t y . Simmons f i l e d a w r i t o f mandamus i n w h i c h he a s k e d t h i s court t o vacate p e t i t i o n on November i t s dismissal. a petition for court t o order the This court granted the 8, 2 0 1 1 , a n d d i r e c t e d t h e t r i a l c o m p l y w i t h t h e remand o r d e r s e t f o r t h i n DuBose within 28 d a y s . DuBose dismissed On O c t o b e r 3, 2 0 1 1 , a f t e r a f a i l e d attempt t o mediate t h i s matter, trial court released then filed court to Construction i n o u r supreme court a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h i s c o u r t t o v a c a t e its mandamus o r d e r . Ex p a r t e Our supreme c o u r t DuBose C o n s t r . the evidence the i n the current record from appeal the i n i t i a l relevant to this following. the p e t i t i o n . Co., 92 So. 3d 49 ( A l a . 2 0 1 2 ) . No a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e was t a k e n The r e c o r d denied i n t h i s c a s e on remand. has been supplemented appeal, appeal. which That e v i d e n c e Simmons was a f o r e m a n w i t h 3 includes with the indicates DuBose when, on 2120440 F e b r u a r y 14, 2005, he s l i p p e d and f e l l a t a c o n s t r u c t i o n injuring of h i s r i g h t knee. site, A m a g n e t i c r e s o n a n c e image ("MRI") 1 Simmons's r i g h t knee i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d a t o r n m e d i a l meniscus. In A p r i l 2005, Dr. T a i Chung o p e r a t e d on Simmons's r i g h t knee t o r e p a i r t h e t e a r . After t h e s u r g e r y , Simmons c o n t i n u e d t o s u f f e r p a i n s w e l l i n g i n h i s r i g h t knee. On November 9, 2005, he Dr. T u c k e r M a t t o x , an o r t h o p a e d i c s u r g e o n . and visited In h i s d e p o s i t i o n , Dr. M a t t o x t e s t i f i e d t h a t he e x a m i n e d Simmons's r i g h t knee and r e v i e w e d an MRI o f t h a t knee t h a t h a d b e e n t a k e n on A u g u s t 2 0 0 5 - - f o u r months a f t e r Dr. Chung had o p e r a t e d on t h e Dr. Mattox "tear and said that t h e MRI degeneration of indicated the i n v o l v i n g the p o s t e r i o r horn." medial that 22, knee. Simmons had meniscus, a primarily Dr. M a t t o x t e s t i f i e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e m e n i s c u s t e a r was c a u s i n g Simmons's symptoms o f p a i n and s w e l l i n g . In his deposition, Simmons r e p o r t e d surgery of A p r i l that he Dr. had Mattox never testified that, because r e c o v e r e d f r o m h i s knee 2005 and t h a t he h a d h a d no new injuries, he Simmons t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a l s o i n j u r e d h i s l i t t l e f i n g e r when he f e l l b u t t h a t h i s f i n g e r was " f i n e " a t t h e t i m e o f t h e trial. 1 4 2120440 " w o u l d assume" t h a t t h e p r o b l e m s Simmons was h a v i n g right knee were from the original February However, Dr. M a t t o x continued, numerous tear the meniscus, and of medial he 2005 things could with h i s injury. can cause not say a with c e r t a i n t y what c a u s e d t h e c u r r e n t t e a r . Dr. M a t t o x p e r f o r m e d an a r t h r o s c o p y knee on J a n u a r y said 9, 2006. he d i s c o v e r e d that, Simmons had the procedure, Dr. which Dr. Mattox cartilage Mattox i n part of the knee tear, defined of the a r t i c u l a r c a r t i l a g e of the medial or right i n a d d i t i o n t o the meniscus chondromalacia, degeneration condyule, During on Simmons's as femoral joint. The c h o n d r o m a l a c i a was a " w e a r - a n d - t e a r , a r t h r i t i c issue" rather t h a n t h e r e s u l t o f an a c u t e said. After physical that therapy when he visits, Dr. the 16, 2006 Dr. M a t t o x procedure, to restrengthen h i s knee. e x a m i n e d Simmons d u r i n g Simmons was Mattox January January injury, allowed 2006, not e x p e r i e n c i n g Simmons t o r e t u r n with limited m o t i o n i n Simmons's knee and to postoperative any u n u s u a l problems. t o l i g h t - d u t y work or walking. he was p l e a s e d b e l i e v e d Simmons's 5 went Dr. M a t t o x s a i d routine standing F e b r u a r y 20, 2006, Dr. M a t t o x s a i d , Simmons on On w i t h the s t r e n g t h was 2120440 returning. Dr. M a t t o x s a i d t h a t Simmons was s t i l l complaining o f p a i n w i t h c e r t a i n a c t i v i t y , w h i c h was t y p i c a l . Dr. M a t t o x provided Simmons w i t h a knee s l e e v e t o wear f o r c o m f o r t a n d t o l d him t o take n o n p r e s c r i p t i o n M o t r i n or A d v i l Dr. f o r pain. M a t t o x s a i d t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h a t , on F e b r u a r y 20, 2006, Simmons h a d 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 ("MMI"), and he released work. Simmons t o h i s normal medical on Simmons, a n d he d i d n o t a s s i g n h i m a p e r m a n e n t impairment. t i m e on May 10, 2006. still complained activities. Simmons v i s i t e d At t h a t time, o f some pain Dr. M a t t o x f o r t h e l a s t Dr. M a t t o x s a i d , i n h i s knee unexpected" because of of the c a r t i l a g e the two because degeneration, medical certain of the surgeries and i n Simmons's r i g h t knee. a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e p a i n Simmons was h a v i n g was during Simmons D r . M a t t o x s a i d t h e p a i n Simmons d e s c r i b e d degeneration time duties at Dr. M a t t o x t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t impose any work restriction not to return "was the When i n h i s knee a t t h a t work-related injury Dr. M a t t o x s a i d t h a t , t o a r e a s o n a b l e or the degree of c e r t a i n t y , i t was h i s o p i n i o n t h a t Simmons's p a i n was caused by t h e degeneration. 6 2120440 Dr. M a t t o x t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e c a l l t h a t ever complained t o him o f h a v i n g part o f h i s body unequivocally condition that would than there was no r e a s o n functioning properly. type of surgery said that with h i s knee, his right any other knee. that He stated knee o f h i s body part Simmons's from Dr. M a t t o x a l s o s a i d t h a t , a f t e r t h e he p e r f o r m e d on Simmons, he w o u l d n o t e x p e c t Simmons t o e x p e r i e n c e also any p a i n o r p r o b l e m s w i t h any other prevent Simmons p a i n i n the long term w h i l e w a l k i n g . he t o l d Simmons t h a t Simmons should He i f he h a d any p r o b l e m s contact him. However, M a t t o x s a i d , he n e v e r h e a r d f r o m Simmons a f t e r h i s May Dr. 2006 visit. At right trial, Simmons was asked whether knee h a d a f f e c t e d o t h e r responded that h i s r i g h t parts was " o f f b a l a n c e . " it." He a l s o to h i s Simmons complained b e c a u s e , he s a i d , h i s b a c k Simmons was a s k e d w h e t h e r h i s knee a f f e c t e d t h e way he w a l k e d . then o f h i s body. f o o t was numb. t h a t he was " a l w a y s i n a s t r a i n " the i n j u r y Simmons s a i d t h a t i t d i d . a s k e d w h e t h e r he h a d "any b a c k p a i n s Simmons r e p l i e d , "Yes." b e c a u s e o f h i s r i g h t knee or anything He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he injury. 7 injury He was with limped 2120440 Simmons a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he r e t u r n e d after his injury. t o work a t DuBose H i s s u p e r v i s o r , W i l l i a m Reid Gaston, Jr., t e s t i f i e d t h a t Simmons c o n t i n u e d t o do g o o d work f o r DuBose up until t h e t i m e he v o l u n t a r i l y l e f t work i n May 2006. a l s o s a i d t h a t Simmons was w o r k i n g f u l l perform left for a l l of h i s duties work. up u n t i l DuBose b e c a u s e , he s a i d , the j o b . t i m e and was a b l e t o t h e t i m e he However, Simmons t e s t i f i e d Gaston voluntarily t h a t he q u i t w o r k i n g he was p h y s i c a l l y u n a b l e t o do He h a s w o r k e d f o r o t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n c o m p a n i e s s i n c e l e a v i n g h i s j o b w i t h DuBose, e a r n i n g t h e same o r e v e n a h i g h e r income than he was earning before the accident. t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a s h i r e d s u b c o n t r a c t o r s Simmons t o p e r f o r m j o b s he u s e d t o be a b l e t o do. On remand, t h e t r i a l court entered a j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 3, 2012 ("the 2012 j u d g m e n t " ) , i n w h i c h i t s t a t e d : " S i n c e h i s initial his injury, Simmons h a s c o n t i n u o u s l y had i n s t a b i l i t y i n knee w h i c h c r e a t e d p r o b l e m s w i t h h i s l o w b a c k . Although d i s p u t e d , Simmons l e f t h i s employment w i t h DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n Company because physical trial he limitations court was unable as a r e s u l t determined that 8 t o do t h e work due to h i s o f h i s knee i n j u r y . " "Simmons was entitled The to 2120440 c o m p e n s a t i o n o u t s i d e t h e s c h e d u l e , w h i c h was 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 t o t h e body as a w h o l e and partial l o s s of h i s a b i l i t y DuBose has now contends that the appealed trial to a 15 p e r c e n t permanent earn." f r o m t h e 2012 court erred judgment. in I t again awarding b e n e f i t s b a s e d on h i s l o s s o f e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . Simmons Specifically, DuBose s a y s , b e c a u s e o n l y Simmons's r i g h t knee was injured in the limited a c c i d e n t , h i s compensation that permitted f o r a scheduled Ala. Code 1975. prove t h a t the should have b e e n i n j u r y , pursuant t o § 25-5-57, DuBose a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t Simmons f a i l e d injury to his right knee had to any effect to on o t h e r p a r t s of h i s body. The standard compensation cases "Section the standard cases: this i s well court uses to review workers' settled: 25-5-81(e), of review A l a . Code 1975, provides i n workers' compensation "'(1) In r e v i e w i n g proof set forth herein issues, review by the A p p e a l s s h a l l be w i t h o u t correctness. the s t a n d a r d of and o t h e r legal Court of Civil a presumption of "'(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 court 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 . ' 9 2120440 " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s '"evidence o f such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons 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 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 Graphics, I n c . v. Clemons, 88 So. 3d 908, 910 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . I n Ex p a r t e Hayes, 70 So. 3d 1211, supreme c o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e t e s t 1217 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) , o u r f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r an i n j u r y t o a s c h e d u l e d member, s u c h as a l e g , s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as an u n s c h e d u l e d i n j u r y t o t h e b o d y as a w h o l e : " ' I n [Ex p a r t e ] Drummond [Co., 837 So. 2d 831 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ] , t h i s C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g test: " ' [ I ] f the e f f e c t s of the l o s s o f t h e member e x t e n d t o o t h e r p a r t s o f the body and interfere with their e f f i c i e n c y , the schedule allowance f o r the l o s t member i s n o t e x c l u s i v e . ' " 837 So. 2d a t 834 ( q u o t i n g 4 L e x K. L a r s o n , L a r s o n ' s W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n Law § 87.02 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ) . T h i s t e s t c l e a r l y does n o t r e q u i r e damage to the p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e of other p a r t s of t h e body i n o r d e r t o t a k e an i n j u r y o u t o f the schedule.' "[Ex p a r t e Jackson,] 997 So. 2d [1038] a t 1039 [(Ala. 2007)]. As t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l Appeals r e c o g n i z e d i n i t s o p i n i o n on remand f r o m this Court's d e c i s i o n i n Jackson: " ' B a s e d on t h e h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , supra, i n order t o prove t h a t the e f f e c t s o f t h e i n j u r y t o t h e s c h e d u l e d member 10 2120440 " e x t e n d t o o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e body a n d interfere with their e f f i c i e n c y , " the e m p l o y e e does n o t have t o p r o v e t h a t t h e e f f e c t s a c t u a l l y cause a permanent p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o n o n s c h e d u l e d p a r t s o f t h e body. R a t h e r , t h e e m p l o y e e must p r o v e t h a t t h e i n j u r y t o t h e s c h e d u l e d member c a u s e s p a i n or other symptoms that render the nonscheduled parts o f t h e body less efficient.' " 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, 1044 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . We a l s o n o t e w i t h a p p r o v a l t h e subsequent e x p l a n a t i o n by t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s i n C h i l d Day C a r e A s s ' n v. C h r i s t e s e n , 47 So. 3d 249 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) : " ' I n Ex p a r t e Drummond Co., 837 So. 2d 831, 834 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t r e s t a t e d t h e t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g when an i n j u r y t o a s c h e d u l e d member may be t r e a t e d as a n o n s c h e d u l e d i n j u r y t o t h e body as a whole: " ' [ I ] f t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e l o s s o f t h e member e x t e n d t o o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e body a n d i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y , t h e s c h e d u l e a l l o w a n c e f o r t h e l o s t member i s not e x c l u s i v e . ' " ( Q u o t i n g 4 L e x K. L a r s o n , L a r s o n ' s W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n Law § 87.02 (2001).) "To ' i n t e r f e r e ' means ' t o interpose i n a way that hinders or i m p e d e s . ' See M e r r i a m - W e b s t e r ' s C o l l e g i a t e Dictionary 652 (11th ed. 2003). 'Efficiency' refers to effective functioning. I d . a t 397." B o i s e Cascade C o r p . v. J a c k s o n , 997 So. 2d 1042, 1045 ( A l a . C i v . App. 20 0 8 ) . ' "47 So. 3d a t 2 5 1 . " I n t h i s c a s e , Simmons t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f h i s knee i n j u r y , h i s b a c k was " o f f b a l a n c e " a n d t h a t he now w a l k e d w i t h 11 2120440 a limp. result In h i s b r i e f of the r i g h t h i p and to change left on appeal, Simmons a s s e r t s t h a t , as in his gait, leg. We he a l s o has of the record, t h a t Simmons was leg, e i t h e r by related we d i d not complaining direct appears. locate evidence In or i n medical of p a i n . cite our indicating of p a i n i n h i s r i g h t h i p or testimony Simmons's c o m p l a i n t s in his n o t e t h a t Simmons f a i l e d t o t h e r e c o r d r e g a r d i n g where s u c h t e s t i m o n y review pain a records In i t s judgment, left that the t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d o n l y t h a t Simmons's knee i n j u r y had a f f e c t e d his lower back. Therefore, s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports we must the t r i a l determine court's whether determination t h a t Simmons's knee i n j u r y e x t e n d e d t o h i s b a c k and i n t e r f e r e d with i t s efficiency. See Hayes, 70 So. 3d a t 1217. "Under A l a b a m a ' s w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w , t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r an i n j u r y t o one p a r t o f t h e b o d y c a u s e s symptoms t o a n o t h e r p a r t o f t h e body i s a q u e s t i o n of medical c a u s a t i o n . See Honda Mfg. o f A l a b a m a , LLC v. A l f o r d , [6] So. 3d [22] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . To p r o v e m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n , t h e employee must p r o v e that the e f f e c t s of the scheduled injury, in fact, contribute to the symptoms i n t h e n o n s c h e d u l e d p a r t s o f t h e b o d y . See g e n e r a l l y Ex p a r t e V a l d e z , 636 So. 2d 401, 405 ( A l a . 1994). T h e r e f o r e , i n order to decide whether the e m p l o y e e has satisfied the first prong of the Drummond t e s t , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t the i n j u r y t o the employee's f o o t a l t e r e d the employee's 12 2120440 g a i t s o as t o c a u s e p a i n i n t h e e m p l o y e e ' s See A l a . Code 1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) ( 2 ) . " B o i s e C a s c a d e C o r p . v. J a c k s o n , Civ. App. 2 0 0 8 ) ( f o o t n o t e back. 997 So. 2d 1042, 1044 (Ala. omitted). In C h a d w i c k T i m b e r Co. v. P h i l o n , 10 So. 3d 1014, 1019-21 (Ala C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , constitutes this court " s u b s t a n t i a l evidence" discussed at length of medical causation: " ' I n Ex p a r t e P r i c e , 555 So. 2d 1060, 1061 ( A l a . 1989), t h i s Court h e l d t h a t expert medical testimony i s not required to prove medical c a u s a t i o n by substantial evidence. Thus, i t was n o t n e c e s s a r y f o r [the p l a i n t i f f ] t o p r e s e n t t e s t i m o n y f r o m a medical expert tying her i n j u r y to her workplace accident. However, t h e C o u r t also stated i n Price that " [ i ] t i s i n the o v e r a l l substance and e f f e c t o f t h e whole of t h e e v i d e n c e , when v i e w e d i n t h e f u l l c o n t e x t o f a l l t h e l a y and e x p e r t e v i d e n c e , and n o t i n t h e w i t n e s s ' s u s e o f any m a g i c a l words o r p h r a s e s , t h a t t h e t e s t f i n d s i t s application." P r i c e , 555 So. 2d a t 1063 ( c i t i n g O d e l l v. M y e r s , 52 A l a . App. 558, 295 So. 2d 413 (1974)) ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ; emphasis added).' "Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, 1116, 1121-22 ( A l a . 2003) . I n c . , 873 So. 2d " I n Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , s u p r a , the p l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t e d evidence i n d i c a t i n g o n l y t h a t h e r c l a i m e d i n j u r y c o u l d be r e l a t e d t o h e r employment. The c o u r t s u m m a r i z e d t h e e v i d e n c e b y s t a t i n g t h a t 'the t e s t i m o n y o f t h e [ ] d o c t o r s a t b e s t established a possibility t h a t [the p l a i n t i f f ' s ] b a c k c o n d i t i o n was c a u s e d b y h e r a l l e g e d o n - t h e - j o b 13 what 2120440 injury.' Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , 873 So. 2d a t 1122. The o n l y d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f m e d i c a l causation regarding the back injury was the p l a i n t i f f ' s own t e s t i m o n y . The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t was n o t h o l d i n g t h a t a p l a i n t i f f ' s t e s t i m o n y c o u l d never c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of medical c a u s a t i o n . However, i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e ' o v e r a l l substance' of the evidence d i d not support a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was p e r m a n e n t l y and totally d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t o f h e r o n - t h e - j o b i n j u r y . Id. I n so h o l d i n g , t h e c o u r t r e i t e r a t e d t h a t ' " [ i ] t i s a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e that evidence presented by 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 a n t must be more t h a n e v i d e n c e o f mere p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t w o u l d o n l y s e r v e t o 'guess' the employer i n t o l i a b i l i t y . " ' Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , 873 So. 2d a t 1122 ( q u o t i n g 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. 1989)). " I n J a c k s o n L a n d s c a p i n g , I n c . v. Hooks, 844 So. 2d 1267 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , t h e w o r k e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s b a c k p a i n was c a u s e d by an on-the-job a c c i d e n t . The w o r k e r ' s d o c t o r t e s t i f i e d t h a t ' t h e r e was a " p r o b a b i l i t y [ t h a t t h e w o r k e r ' s b a c k i n j u r y ] could have been"' caused by the work-related accident. 844 So. 2d a t 1272. The t r i a l c o u r t found the employer l i a b l e f o r the c o s t s of t r e a t i n g the worker's back i n j u r y . However, t h i s court r e v e r s e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the worker d i d not p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence to d e m o n s t r a t e h i s c l a i m e d b a c k i n j u r y was c a u s e d by his on-the-job i n j u r y . " I n V a l t e x , I n c . v. Brown, 897 So. 2d 332 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2004), the worker t e s t i f i e d t h a t her cumulative-stress injuries were caused by her employment. Her d o c t o r t e s t i f i e d o n l y t h a t i t was m e d i c a l l y p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e w o r k e r ' s employment c a u s e d h e r symptoms. The s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n i n an a c t i o n s e e k i n g workers ' compensation benefits for a c u m u l a t i v e - s t r e s s i n j u r y i s c l e a r and convincing 14 2120440 e v i d e n c e . V a l t e x , I n c . v. Brown, 897 So. 2d a t 337. Although t h i s court applied the appropriate standard in V a l t e x , supra, i n reaching i t s decision this c o u r t n o t e d t h a t ' [ t ] h e r e [was] n o t e v e n s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of medical causation i n [the] case.' V a l t e x , I n c . v . Brown, 897 So. 2d a t 337. " I n t h i s c a s e , [ t h e w o r k e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had s u f f e r e d an i n j u r y t o h i s b a c k when he f e l l a n d h i t h i s b a c k on a t r e e l i m b d u r i n g t h e M a r c h 8, 2001, o n - t h e - j o b a c c i d e n t . None o f [ t h e w o r k e r ' s ] medical records indicate that he e v e r told a t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n t h a t he h a d s u f f e r e d a b a c k injury. I n t h e f a l l o f 2 0 0 1 , [ t h e w o r k e r ] began t e l l i n g h i s p h y s i c a l t h e r a p i s t t h a t he h a d some b a c k pain, a n d i n September a n d O c t o b e r 2 0 0 1 , [ t h e w o r k e r ] c o m p l a i n e d t o D r . P e a r s a l l t h a t he h a d b a c k pain. However, [ t h e w o r k e r ] d i d n o t r e l a t e h i s c o m p l a i n t s o f b a c k p a i n t o any s p e c i f i c s o u r c e . [The worker] r e c e i v e d no t r e a t m e n t f o r a b a c k i n j u r y . O t h e r t h a n h i s own t e s t i m o n y t h a t he f e l l and h i t h i s b a c k on a t r e e l i m b , [the w o r k e r ] f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t he had s u f f e r e d a b a c k i n j u r y as a r e s u l t o f h i s M a r c h 8, 2 0 0 1 , o n - t h e - j o b a c c i d e n t . Given the evidence i n the record, we must hold that the ' o v e r a l l s u b s t a n c e ' o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d does n o t support a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t [the worker] s u f f e r e d a b a c k i n j u r y on M a r c h 8, 2 0 0 1 . See Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , s u p r a ; J a c k s o n L a n d s c a p i n g , I n c . v. Hooks, s u p r a . " As was indicating the that case in Simmons's Chadwick injury Timber, to his right a f f e c t e d o t h e r p a r t s o f h i s body i s s p a r s e . his knee strain" injury because affected h i s back his gait was 15 the evidence knee has A l t h o u g h he s a i d and t h a t " o f fbalance," he was "ina Simmons never 2120440 s p e c i f i c a l l y m e n t i o n e d t h a t he was which was the finding Simmons p r e s e n t e d no or r e c e i v e d m e d i c a l o r f o r any by the the trial court. Furthermore, e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he ever sought t r e a t m e n t f r o m any p h y s i c i a n f o r b a c k p a i n o t h e r a r e a o f h i s b o d y t h a t he i n j u r y to h i s r i g h t On c l a i m s was right meniscus r e p a i r the t e a r d i d not said unequivocally that affected knee. t h e o t h e r hand, Dr. M a t t o x t e s t i f i e d Simmons's did of having lower-back problems, and the t h a t the t e a r i n subsequent surgeries cause permanent d i s a b i l i t y . the injury and subsequent He surgeries to limp. s a i d t h a t , i n h i s o p i n i o n , Simmons's knee p a i n a f t e r May the Dr. a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t the s u r g e r i e s to r e p a i r Simmons's knee i n j u r y w o u l d n o t have c a u s e d him was also n o t have an e f f e c t on o t h e r p a r t s o f Simmons's b o d y . Mattox's testimony to r e s u l t of the degenerative condition in his He 2006 knee. F u r t h e r m o r e , Dr. M a t t o x s a i d t h a t Simmons n e v e r c o m p l a i n e d t o him of pain reviewing the anywhere other r e c o r d , we than in his right conclude t h a t the knee. overall o f t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l court's that his Simmons's Therefore, knee the t r i a l injury affected After substance conclusion lower back. c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g Simmons w o r k e r s ' 16 2120440 compensation b e n e f i t s o u t s i d e of the compensation schedule f o r a leg injury. DuBose a s k s t h i s c o u r t t o make a f i n d i n g t h a t Simmons i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r any w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s f o r his knee i n j u r y b e c a u s e , i t says, Simmons p e r m a n e n t l y d i s a b l e d . the a c c i d e n t d i d not However, f r o m t h e r e c o r d leave before us i t i s c l e a r t h a t a d i s p u t e e x i s t s as t o t h e e x t e n t , i f any, of disability knee. resulting I t i s the r o l e from of the t r i a l opportunity to disability, i f any. 1345, ( A l a . C i v . App. that 1347 the t r i a l extent yet, view Simmons, court, consider making determine 1995) which has and best judgment. Civ. App. 1988)."). the task of the T i r e Corp., ("The law the duty evidence right of 660 2d i s well before So. settled to determine the trial the degree i s n o t b o u n d by e x p e r t i t s determination, a l l the observations, to to h i s c o u r t , w h i c h has h a d W o l f e v. D u n l o p of the d i s a b i l i t y , in Simmons's i n j u r y the testimony; court i t , including must its own i t must i n t e r p r e t t h e e v i d e n c e t o i t s own Genpak C o r p . v. G i b s o n , 534 So. 2d 312 ( A l a . A c c o r d i n g l y , we l e a v e t o t h e t r i a l determining the degree of d i s a b i l i t y , Simmons has as a r e s u l t o f h i s r i g h t - k n e e 17 injury. court i f any, 2120440 DuBose a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s t o Simmons b a s e d on h i s l o s s o f earning capacity because, i t says, i n d i c a t e d t h a t Simmons h a d r e t u r n e d and the undisputed evidence t o work a f t e r h i s i n j u r y t h a t h i s a n n u a l income a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t was e q u a l greater The t h a n i t had been b e f o r e "return-to-work" to or the accident. statute provides: "I. R e t u r n t o Work. I f , on o r a f t e r t h e d a t e o f maximum m e d i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t , e x c e p t f o r s c h e d u l e d i n j u r i e s as p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) , an i n j u r e d w o r k e r r e t u r n s t o work a t a wage e q u a l t o o r greater t h a n t h e w o r k e r ' s p r e - i n j u r y wage, t h e worker's permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g s h a l l be e q u a l t o h i s o r h e r p h y s i c a l i m p a i r m e n t a n d t h e c o u r t s h a l l n o t c o n s i d e r any e v i d e n c e o f v o c a t i o n a l disability." § 25-5-57(I), A l a . Code 1975 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . B e c a u s e we have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Simmons d i d n o t meet h i s burden of proving that compensation schedule, his injury falls outside we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s i s s u e . F o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h a b o v e , we r e v e r s e of t h e t r i a l of the t h e judgment c o u r t t h a t awards c o m p e n s a t i o n t o Simmons b a s e d on i t s determination as a whole, t h a t Simmons's i n j u r y a f f e c t e d h i s body a n d we remand t h e c a u s e 18 f o r the t r i a l court to 2120440 determine t h e degree o f d i s a b i l i t y , r e s u l t of the February i f a n y , Simmons h a s as a 14, 2005, i n j u r y t o h i s r i g h t knee. Simmons h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h i s a p p e a l a n d f o r s a n c t i o n s on t h e g r o u n d that the appeal i s f r i v o l o u s . In the m o t i o n , Simmons a p p e a r s t o a r g u e t h a t t h e i s s u e s DuBose r a i s e s in this appeal a r e t h e same as t h o s e raised in i t s first a p p e a l and t h a t t h e l a w - o f - t h e - c a s e d o c t r i n e b a r s t h i s a p p e a l . "'"[U]nder t h e 'law o f t h e c a s e ' d o c t r i n e , once e s t a b l i s h e d b e t w e e n t h e same p a r t i e s 'whatever i s i n t h e same case c o n t i n u e s t o be t h e l a w o f t h a t c a s e , w h e t h e r o r n o t c o r r e c t on general decision was case.'"'" 2011) So. principles, as t h e f a c t s predicated continue t o be the facts (quoting M i l l e r 2d 5 7 1 , 572-73 & Miller ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , (Ala. quoting 920 i n turn "'"The l a w - o f - t h e - c a s e d o c t r i n e p r o v i d e s t h a t a court decides case, the of the C o n s t r . Co. v. M a d e w e l l , upon a rule of law, t h a t r u l e c o n t i n u e t o g o v e r n t h e same i s s u e s i n s u b s e q u e n t same on w h i c h Walden v. ES C a p i t a l , L L C , 89 So. 3d 90, 107 other cases). when so l o n g thereby hastening an end to should stages i n the litigation by f o r e c l o s i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e p e a t e d l y l i t i g a t i n g an i s s u e already decided."'" I d . ( q u o t i n g M a r t i n v. C a s h 19 Express, 2120440 I n c . , 60 So. 3d 236, 249 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , q u o t i n g v. Queen, 39 So. 3d 1023, 1038 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) ) ; i n turn Belcher see a l s o Blumberg v. Touche R o s s & Co., 514 So. 2d 922, 924 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ( s a m e ) . In t h e p r e v i o u s decide 1143. appeal any i s s u e s o f l a w . Instead, remanded concerning t h e cause the t r i a l f o r the t r i a l this court d i d not court's court judgment and t o make findings w h e t h e r Simmons's i n j u r y e n t i t l e d h i m t o b e n e f i t s I d . The t r i a l f a c t i t b e l i e v e d supported first case, DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n , 989 So. 2d a t we r e v e r s e d outside the schedule. the of this time, evidence supported this i t s judgment. court those c o u r t made f i n d i n g s o f considered f i n d i n g s ; thus, In t h i s appeal, f o r whether s u b s t a n t i a l the law-of-the-case d o c t r i n e was i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d . Simmons's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l of s a n c t i o n s Accordingly, and f o r t h e i m p o s i t i o n a g a i n s t DuBose i s d e n i e d . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, 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 20 writing.

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.