Ex parte Travis C. Aderhold. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Massey Chevrolet, Inc. v. Travis C. Aderhold) (Mobile Circuit Court: CV-05-3116.51, CV-05-3116.80; Civil Appeals : 2071082 , 2071089). Writ Denied. No Opinion.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL:5/22/2009 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009 ____________________ 1080560 ____________________ Ex parte Travis C. Aderhold PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Massey Chevrolet, Inc. v. Travis C. Aderhold) (Mobile Circuit Court, CV-05-3116.51, CV-05-3116.80; Court of Civil Appeals, 2071082, 2071089) SMITH, Justice. WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION. Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, Parker, and Shaw, JJ., concur. Murdock, J., concurs specially. 1080560 MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially). I concur in denying the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Travis Aderhold. I do not wish, however, to be understood as necessarily agreeing with the analysis in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case. Ex parte Massey Chevrolet, Inc., [Ms. 2071082, January 23, 2009] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). The Court of Civil Appeals held that Aderhold's employer, Massey Chevrolet, Inc., was liable under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act for paying for procedures and treatments administered to Aderhold by Dr. Charles Aprill to the extent that those procedures and treatments were authorized by Dr. Chris Nichols. Dr. Nichols, however, was not Aderhold's authorized treating physician. Consequently, the Court of Civil Appeals has gone further than previous decisions of that court and of this Court in its holding in this case. In reaching its decision, the Court of Civil Appeals correctly quoted Overnite Transportation Co. v. McDuffie, 933 So. 2d 1092 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), as follows: "'[T]he employer is responsible for paying for the treatment choice made by the authorized treating physician so long as that choice falls within the parameters of what is "reasonably necessary" to 2 1080560 treat the employee. See Ex parte Southeast Alabama Med. Ctr., 835 So. 2d 1042, 1046 n.4 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). This principle has been applied repeatedly in cases in which the "treatment" recommended by the authorized physician is a treatment to be administered by a second physician.'" Ex parte Massey Chevrolet, Inc., ___ So. 3d at ___ (quoting Overnite Transportation, 933 So. 2d at 1096 (emphasis added)). The Court of Civil Appeals also noted the holding in Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 863 So. 2d 1099, 1102 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), that " '"the [authorized treating] physician is empowered under the [Workers' Compensation] Act to treat the employee for so long as is reasonably necessary and to refer the employee to other necessary treatment."'" Dr. Nichols was medical providers for reasonably ___ So. 3d at ___ . not Aderhold's "authorized treating physician" under the Act; Dr. Brendt Peterson was Aderhold's authorized treating physician. I do not wish to be understood, therefore, as having concluded for purposes of this case that Dr. Nichols had the authority to bind Massey Chevrolet to pay for treatment by another physician. The authority upon which the Court of Civil Appeals bases its conclusion, including those authorities quoted above, would 3 1080560 apply to Dr. Aprill only if he had been authorized by Dr. Peterson to treat Aderhold. In Dr. Overnite John physician. Hackman Transportation, to serve as the employer the employee's authorized treating Dr. Hackman, in turn, referred the employee to Dr. Edwin Kelsey for pain management. The Court of Civil Appeals held as follows: "Consistent with this court's holding in Genpak [Corp. v. Gibson, 534 So. 2d 312 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988),] and the other cases cited above, because the treating physician prescribed treatment by Dr. Kelsey, and because there is no evidence indicating that that treatment did not fall within the parameters of what was 'reasonably necessary' as contemplated by ยง 25-5-77(a), [Ala. Code 1975,] that treatment was authorized under the Workers' 2 Compensation Act. __________ " 2 This case does not present the arguably different question of whether McDuffie would be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of being treated by a physician to whom Dr. Kelsey, in turn, might have referred him." 933 So. 2d at 1097 (emphasis added). Massey Chevrolet has not sought certiorari review of the Court of Civil Appeals' decision. I concur in the decision to deny the petition for certiorari review filed by Aderhold, the employee. 4
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.
