Ex parte Cowabunga, Inc., d/b/a Domino's Pizza. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Cowabunga, Inc., d/b/a Domino's Pizza v. Thomas W. Short)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/21/2011 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090734 Ex p a r t e Cowabunga, I n c . , d/b/a Domino's Pizza PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (Cowabunga, I n c . , d/b/a Domino's Pizza v. Thomas W. (Autauga PER Circuit Short) Court, CV-09-200) CURIAM. Cowabunga, filed I n c . , d/b/a Domino's a n o t i c e of appeal Circuit Court ("the t r i a l f r o m an o r d e r Pizza ("the e m p l o y e r " ) , entered by t h e Autauga c o u r t " ) f i n d i n g t h a t T h o m a s W. Short 2090734 ("the is employee") had covered Act"), by Ala. employer the fact as a § relief sought." Civ. petition App. with et seq., and physician. petition employer that that Compensation treating of the Workers' and treatment conclusions the injury 25-5-1 court's Act, an medical trial the order for authorized the and (Ala. Alabama 1 975, pay appeal because of Code to employee's the sustained for order law, has Ex writ not parte 2003). shown "a i n s t r u c t i o n s to the are 855 we treat however, required So. deny trial the findings clear legal Amerigas, Therefore, containing appropriate contain 2d the court f i n d i n g s of f a c t the by e l e c t to mandamus; hold ("the requiring We does not w h i c h we Act recommended of injury of under right to 544, 546 employer's to and enter an conclusions law. An appeal will l i e only from a final judgment, i . e . , "'a " t e r m i n a l d e c i s i o n w h i c h d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e r e has been a c o m p l e t e a d j u d i c a t i o n of a l l m a t t e r s i n controversy between the litigants." Tidwell v. T i d w e l l , 496 So. 2 d 9 1 , 92 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986). F u r t h e r , t h e j u d g m e n t m u s t be c o n c l u s i v e a n d c e r t a i n with a l l matters decided '" Williams Civ. (Ala. App. Power, 2003) C i v . App. Inc. v. (quoting 1990)). Johnson, Dees v. An order 8 80 State, So. 563 2d So. that contains 459, 2d 4 61 1059, a finding (Ala. 1061 that 2090734 a worker arising has s u s t a i n e d requires the i n j u r y 2071117, 2009), writ 1081550, Legend, and July May workers' omits this Such an o r d e r does compensation matter as a p e t i t i o n Corp. (Ala. seeking v. "[t]his Liberty C i v . App. appellate Cowart, ( A l a . C i v . App. I n c . , [Ms. Homes o f of O'Neal, 853 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 9 the worker as to court which review o f an this may court disability elect order the to interpret the I n s . Co., i s "[t]he court's to dismiss o f mandamus, Life 2003)," the 855 S o . 2 d a t 5 3 8 . moves Nat'l because the nature of the t r i a l for a writ (Ala. not completely adjudicate decision t h e employee However, Ins. claim terminal appeal. injury 855 S o . 2 d 536 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) ; on t h e n o n f i n a l case, I n c . v. ( A l a . 2010); E x p r e s s , I n c . v. Renner, any employment, f o r that SouthernCare, So. 3d accident t h e A c t , and t h a t So. 3d ___ parte due t h e w o r k e r . Based in Ex 14, 2010] C i v . App. 2003). benefits under See S o u t h e r n C a r e , 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 ] ___ I n c . v. O'Neal, order compensable judgment. quashed, USA M o t o r the o f an t h e payment o f o n l y m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s not a f i n a l [Ms. as t h e r e s u l t out o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e w o r k e r ' s t h e r e b y making is an i n j u r y see V e s t a 893 So. proper interlocutory order Fire 2d 395 means of in this 2090734 court." Norman v. Norman, 984 S o . 2 d 4 2 7 , 429 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007). "Mandamus i s an extraordinary remedy. An appellate court w i l l grant a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus o n l y when ' ( 1 ) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t ; (2) t h e r e s p o n d e n t h a s an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y t o p e r f o r m a n d h a s r e f u s e d t o do s o ; (3) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s no o t h e r adequate remedy; and (4) this Court's jurisdiction is p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d . ' E x p a r t e F l i n t C o n s t r . C o . , 775 So. 2 d 8 0 5 , 808 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c i t i n g E x p a r t e M e r c u r y Fin. C o r p . , 715 S o . 2 d 1 9 6 , 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . " Ex parte Amerigas, jurisdiction to workers' 855 So. review at 54 6. interlocutory compensation cases inadequate. 2d This orders court has entered in when t h e r e m e d y o f a p p e a l See E x p a r t e A l a b a m a P o w e r C o . , 863 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 9 , 1102 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . In t h i s both the t r i a l c o u r t and t h i s court to stay enforcement of the order. the t r i a l trial denied court's the motions to stay; the t r i a l employer to immediately behalf Both medical Awaiting court's order benefits, review and, court court the employer's f o r i t s noncompliance. obeyed the t r i a l the employer and by employer would subject to thereafter the employee's i t continues appeal court b e n e f i t s on being and began p a y i n g presumably, of the order The this moved also required the p r o v i d e payment o f m e d i c a l of the employee w i t h sanctions case, w o u l d be only to do so. force the 2090734 employer that by to incur i t may the never fact further expenses r e c o v e r from that the e a r n wages. In l i g h t employer's right i t may t h e e m p l o y e e who, employer temporary-total-disability that is now benefits, appeal the final for or more, i s inadequate. (Murdock. J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n the at 547-48 that an appeal would The employer right to a employee's be judgment and employee's back i n j u r y expenses, We, court are unable has c o n c l u s i o n s of law. circuit to courts, benefits filing t o be to failed enter court, those by the Act, to So. 2d (implying situation). a clear legal of the finding the medical i t s proper relief. p o i n t s because of fact that the and requires c o n t r o v e r s y as t o t h e w i t h the c l e r k of the c i r c u i t will awarding findings determine the entered 855 S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 8 8 , A l a . Code 1975, when d e c i d i n g a n y under be result) c o m p e n s a b l e and to not compensability trial address that Amerigas, has r e f u s e d t o g r a n t t h e e m p l o y e r however, trial the may t h a t i t has the to find that in a similar argues denying that which See inadequate essentially injury case, paying unable judgment be and evidenced is currently ultimately a year entered i n this as owe voluntarily o f t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we to not right controversy c o u r t "a s t a t e m e n t of by the 2090734 law and In facts this case, regarding right the of the it d i d not of law, in conclusions the trial employee in ordering course the to medical injury of his employer recommended by physician." to the This decided only t o an that to on "approve the apprise May and Co., App. the So. In order 29 this 3d 2010); 918 case, e n t e r e d by appropriate Grace ( A l a . C i v . App. the trial of required of only final of 2009, and of by the similar basis § 25-5-88. Narr, 42 So. for See, 3d 774 Furniture Mfg. 2009). court, fact objected to t h i s court's d i r e c t i v e a r i s i n g out 29, Standard this court directing findings court v. v. had reversed c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n as c o n t e m p l a t e d Civ. employee treating the t r i a l (Ala. conclusions authorized this LLC but treatment for failing Foundry, the medical judgments Belcher-Robinson and and Act, the the repeatedly e.g., controversies accident employment has judge." employee's i n j u r y [employee's] court the f i n d i n g s of f a c t due [the] b e n e f i t s under i t s judgment a personal the d e t e r m i n e d by of the the r e q u i s i t e stating as court compensability file sustained and and in i t s response the t r i a l and conclusions stating judgments. court to Some of to an enter law, t h a t such d e t a i l i s dicta in a prior 2090734 opinion of this court Alabama F u n e r a l (Ala. Civ. the plain findings Servs., App. c o n c u r r i n g and support I n c . v. 2007) (per of fact Hester, curiam § and a benefits the Act. In determined the under compensability of the have the e m p l o y e r pay authorized 25-5-88, the finding controversy So. trial 2d see litigated by law applicable to relied i n reaching Co. Morgan, 30 this one case, making as to the of every right to court over the and treatment By the his right to recommended by plain terms of § r e q u i r e d to i n c l u d e a c o n c l u s i v e as facts 458 however, trial to the issues presented well as upon which i t s determination. 3d judge the physician. parties those So. law 1211 controversies fact responsive the the SCI 1207, with regarding f o r the medical c o u r t was as t o e v e r y of employee's back i n j u r y treating and v. 984 requires conclusions of his position, opinion 25-5-88 "determination" effectively that four judges c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t ) ; language of does See a recitation the trial F o r t James ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). of to the court Holding 2090734 In trial i t s answer t o the p e t i t i o n court injured stated that i t had h i s back i n a f a l l for a writ found o f mandamus, that while working the 1 the employee had f o r t h e e m p l o y e r and t h a t i t had r e j e c t e d as n o t c r e d i b l e a c o - e m p l o y e e ' s t e s t i m o n y indicating that employee's back the injury moving h i s p e r s o n a l had employee a longstanding prior h a d m o v e d h i s own trial court d i d not e x p l a i n i n g why informed occurred furniture. r e c e i v e d emergency-room he had had while him the that employee the l o w e r - b a c k p r o b l e m f o r w h i c h he t r e a t m e n t on M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , a n d furniture in April set forth any of 2009. However, i t s factual he had that the findings i t d i s c o u n t e d the testimony of the co-employee. employee radiographic was The e m p l o y e e a d m i t t e d t h a t Furthermore, the employer maintained at the hearing that, if the had evidence fallen at indicated work, that he the had medical not even and experienced any change i n h i s a l r e a d y damaged l u m b a r s p i n e , w h i c h had been documented Bluff i n an Welding & earlier study Fabrication v. from March Cox, 33 2009. So. 2d See 592 , Hokes 602-03 On O c t o b e r 25, 2010, this court entered an order n o t i f y i n g the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h i s c o u r t had opted t o t r e a t the e m p l o y e r ' s a p p e a l a s a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus and a l l o w i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o f i l e an a n s w e r , i f i t w i s h e d t o do s o . The t r i a l c o u r t r e s p o n d e d b y f i l i n g a n a n s w e r on O c t o b e r 26, 2010. 1 8 2090734 (Ala. C i v . App. 2008) findings showing condition (holding effectively resulted not i n new addressed radiological not For evidence cause of fact employer for once may the writ The t r i a l contention episode court has the medical that c o n c l u s i v e l y proves earlier, o f mandamus. opinion and that and that an o r d e r review o f mandamus P E T I T I O N D E N I E D WITH trial of containing of law. deny However, the conclusions the t r i a l seek injury). lifting we this opinion, that stated in and c o n c l u s i o n s claim the f a l l d i d t o the employee. holding fact preexisting an i n j u r y the reasons now e n t e r identical disproved f o r the writ should radiological of or aggravated petition findings undisputed continuance the employer's medically that Based the employer's because court must law, the t r i a l appropriate enters of that order i n this such an make court findings of on o u r h o l d i n g court of our i n this court. by f i l i n g order, a the petition INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . Pittman, Bryan, J . , concurs i n the result, without writing. J . , concurs i n part and d i s s e n t s i n part, with J . , concurs i n part and d i s s e n t s i n part, with writing. Moore, writing, which Thomas, J . , j o i n s . 2090734 BRYAN, J u d g e , I it concurring respectfully (1) determines in part dissent that the and the from dissenting in main trial court's opinion as i s subject order insofar to t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o u n d i n § 2 5 - 5 - 8 8 , A l a . Code 1975, findings trial of court fact conclusions make to and f i n d i n g s of p u r s u a n t to § 25-5-88. of law fact and and part. (2) mandating requires conclusions S e c t i o n 25-5-88 p r o v i d e s , the of law in pertinent part: "At the h e a r i n g ... the [ t r i a l ] c o u r t ... shall decide the c o n t r o v e r s y . T h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s h a l l be filed in writing with the c l e r k of [ t h e trial] c o u r t , a n d j u d g m e n t s h a l l be e n t e r e d t h e r e o n i n t h e same m a n n e r as i n c i v i l a c t i o n s t r i e d i n t h e [ t r i a l ] c o u r t and s h a l l c o n t a i n a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w and f a c t s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s as d e t e r m i n e d b y [ t h e trial] judge." S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 8 8 , by r e f e r e n c i n g a " j u d g m e n t , " r e q u i r e s a judgment to c o n t a i n However, I do interlocutory findings stated, of not fact albeit C i v . App. entered not the that Sign P l e x v. 2003) ("Of course, judgment one § as in this of Tholl, 863 to law. court applies to So. 2d trial an contain This because the case, of requiring case, law. 25-5-88 in this 10 conclusions section conclusions dicta, See a final that s u c h as and in f a c t s and read order, judgments only. (Ala. f i n d i n g s of final has final 1113, 1117 court has § 25-5-88 has not 2090734 y e t come i n t o p l a y . " ) ; Hester, curiam 984 opinion concurring failure of the the main trial 1207 , 1211 (Ala. Civ. App. with one judge concurring and a final language opinion result) court's applies Servs., 2d i n the to enter plain section So. and SCI A l a b a m a F u n e r a l to (stating "the judgment p r e c l u d e s compliance of that § final i n a l l other with 25-5-88 , judgments respects. 11 our 2007) four trial would only. (per judges court's consideration § 25-5-88"). I I n c . v. hold I concur Based that with on that the 2090734 MOORE, J u d g e , I concurring agree that findings of that the order judgment from mandamus, fact to 1(1), which to the of tribunal that The applicable assumed deciding appeal, part. appropriate However, court not Ala. ... or I believe constituted a a petition Code for final a writ a civil action 1975, provides of medical amount i n the thereof" county sounding decides b e n e f i t s , see Ala. Code legislature 963 d i d not to c o n t r o v e r s i e s that those the So. as to 654, over medical 12 the be have between that See the as § 25-5- the same Ex shall parte (Ala. Civ. App. s p e c i a l procedure b e n e f i t s , so intended w o u l d use would compensation 658 any shall 1975, benefits. provide legislature controversies 2d Code a "the g e n e r a l l y , so provides over medical Inc., that in tort Ala. 1975, a controversy controversies that an e m p l o y e e r e g a r d i n g the court P u b l i x Supermarkets, be law. trial circuit 25-5-77(a), also decide 2007). an the enter Although "compensation" i s defined, include § by must of b e t w e e n an e m p l o y e r a n d jurisdiction to entered dissenting in court conclusions compensation submitted not and trial 25-5-81(a)(1), controversy parties. the and lies. Section right in part that the i t must tribunal same p r o c e d u r e as 2090734 is a p p l i c a b l e to Publix Supermarkets, Section court to decide the shall provides [controversy] parties, subject article." p a r t y may Reading that the 963 So. p a r t i e s have controversy" court 81(a)(1) Inc., controversies. 2d 2 5 - 5 - 8 8 , A l a . Code 1975, which the circuit the compensation that s h a l l be to Section appeal those the judgment "[t]he provides and right 25-5-81(e) appeal circuit dispute "shall 2 the legislature provisions together, envisioned that a of Section judge the 25-5- hearing b i n d i n g between that w i t h i n 42 d a y s " [ f ] r o m an o r d e r three clerk provided provides parte that a the thereon. d e c i s i o n of of a that c o n c l u s i v e and Ex 658. submitted in writing enter at See for in the this any aggrieved or judgment." i t becomes judgment apparent deciding a S e c t i o n 25-5-88 s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s t h a t a "judgment s h a l l be entered thereon i n t h e same m a n n e r as i n civil a c t i o n s t r i e d i n the s a i d c i r c u i t c o u r t " In h i s w r i t i n g , J u d g e B r y a n i n t e r p r e t s t h i s c l a u s e as m a n d a t i n g t h a t only " f i n a l j u d g m e n t s " s h a l l be e n t e r e d b y t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t , presumably r e f e r r i n g to orders meeting the requirements of Ala. Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 2 - 2 . H o w e v e r , I r e a d t h i s c l a u s e m e r e l y as d i r e c t i n g t h e c l e r k s o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s t h a t , o n c e t h e y r e c e i v e a w r i t t e n d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a c o n t r o v e r s y i n a workers' compensation case, they must enter judgment on that controversy j u s t as t h e y w o u l d e n t e r j u d g m e n t i n a civil action, i . e . , by i n p u t t i n g the judgment into the State J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n System. See R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. I do n o t d i s c e r n f r o m t h i s c l a u s e a n y l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o import the f i n a l i t y requirements from c i v i l a c t i o n s i n t o the workers' compensation laws. 2 13 2090734 controversy to, or the submitted Act, Act"), be Civ. would App. language rules relating actions. from a any the an an the 381 2d to e.g., So. 393 into Reg'l 2d of to 32 § this c o u r t has some of court That has court order 1212 on the the has 1975, an made o n l y long been parties requirements compensation 2d on the general civil appeal "[f]rom read entirely as 1162, 1164 laws, see v. available 14 to an of § Ex parte ( A l a . C i v . App. injured put Martin, worker So. 12-22-2 DCH 1990), w r e s t l e d w i t h whether a judgment awarding benefits as pleaded. I n r e E s t a t e o f A m a s o n , 347 Importing So. (Ala. relied A l a b a m a B a n k o f M o n t g o m e r y , N.A. workers' Alabama a p p l i c a b l e to be the ("the result). t h a t does not between Workers' SCI not Code can right 1 975 1207, relied Ala. language f r o m an 2d judgments 12-22-2, controversy C t r . , 571 the of Code i n the instead ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ; and Alabama's So. the under the appealable. 984 this a circuit appeal First and i t has finality ( A l a . 1980). Med. regarding Ala. J., concurring judgment." preventing See, to judgment end court seq., Hester, however, Pursuant final v. Act; et final (Moore, past, of 25-5-1 Inc. 2007) the § deemed Servs., In a circuit amount o f , b e n e f i t s r e c o v e r a b l e Compensation Funeral to may only be 2090734 considered similar final. to the interlocutory Cowart, App. 20 0 9 ) , Funeral at nature, quashed, I n c . , 984 855 So. Inc. and v. C i v . App. orders Lawshe, 16 2d 836 Kenner, Weaver, 743 2002), this e.g., 2d 476 L o g g i n g v. C o l b u r n , 600 parte parte So. 2d So. So. DCH Those cases t o r e s t on 853 ( A l a . 2010); So. v. D e m p s e y , 855 it requires only USA we So. 2009); BE&K, 1999); Mike ( A l a . C i v . App. So. such an 2d 476 order the order "determination" 15 App. 2d 836 I n c . v. Inc. 1992); (Ala. Civ. as of and App. interlocutory d i d not the v. Makemson "claim." completely However, r e q u i r e a d j u d i c a t i o n of the e n t i r e a Motor treated a d j u d i c a t e the e n t i r e workers' compensation § 25-5-88 does not Inc. see F l u o r E n t e r s . , So. 2 d 1049 that Alabama have ( A l a . C i v . App. fact SCI [Ms. (Ala. Civ. cases v. Inc., 2003); 1019 i n other C t r . , 743 Inc. Homes o f L e g e n d , 2d Co. being (Ala. Civ. SouthernCare, 1207; orders as 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. treating the So. ( A l a . C i v . App. R e g ' l Med. case SouthernCare, 3d judgments, 96 appear c o u r t has v i e w e d in Ex while as f i n a l 3d 1999). see, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Paper similar Ex issue So. 14, 2 0 1 0 ] Servs., Express, (Ala. in writ O'Neal, 2003); one this [Ms. 2 0 7 1 1 1 7 , J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 ] 1 0 8 1 5 5 0 , May v. I n many c a s e s , claim; "controversy" or 2090734 "controversies" may include submitted o n l y a p a r t of the Although adjudication" § 12-22-2, Civ. App. for resolution, civil cases overall may which, obviously, "claim." require a "complete i n order to s a t i s f y the f i n a l i t y requirements see Tidwell 1986), v. Tidwell, 496 So. 2d t h e same i s n o t t r u e o f w o r k e r s ' 91, 92 of (Ala. compensation cases. "In e n a c t i n g t h e w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w s , t h e legislature c r e a t e d a w h o l l y new and different remedy u n l i k e t h e r i g h t t o c i v i l damages e x i s t i n g u n d e r t h e common l a w . See Ex p a r t e P u b l i x Super M a r k e t s , I n c . , 963 So. 2d 654, 658 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2007). The legislature also created procedures unique to w o r k e r s ' compensation law to e n f o r c e t h a t r e m e d y . See B i r m i n g h a m B e l t R.R. v. E l l e n b u r g , 215 Ala. 395, 396, 111 So. 21 9, 220 (192 6) ('Without further analysis of the matter, we think compensation p r o c e e d i n g s a r e q u i t e as d i s t i n c t i n p u r p o s e and p r o c e d u r e f r o m t h e o r d i n a r y a c t i o n o f l a w as i s a s u i t a t l a w f r o m a s u i t i n e q u i t y . ' ) . The r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e a p p l i c a b l e t o o r d i n a r y c i v i l actions do not apply to the extent that they c o n f l i c t w i t h the procedure s e t out i n the Workers' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t . See R u l e 8 1 ( a ) ( 3 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; P i t t m a n C o n s t r . Co. v . B o l e s , 233 A l a . 1 8 7 , 1 8 8 , 171 So. 2 6 8 , 268 ( 1 9 3 6 ) ( ' I t m u s t be n o t e d t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e u n d e r t h i s a c t i s g o v e r n e d by i t s t e r m s and r e q u i r e m e n t s and n o t by t h e o r d i n a r y method o f procedure.')." SCI Alabama J., c o n c u r r i n g i n the specified Funeral Servs., that Inc., result). 984 So. Because 2d the at 1212 (Moore, legislature has an o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t d e t e r m i n i n g a c o n t r o v e r s y 16 2090734 as to Act the is turned right final to workers' any of and (2) and employee those employer the (1) Did amount o f , this for 2010, the accident the in approve employee's the of his under never the have finality the of medical pay authorized of trial a two controversies i n an accident on May injury The court employee f o r the 3 treatment treating the arising 2009? for which recommended trial Act. to 29, treatment the court e s t a b l i s h e d i n the employment result favor and by e m p l o y e e s u s t a i n an treating physician? to entered submitted that requires should determining order course issues court tests for finality Did b e n e f i t s due judgment. i n the authorized of test essentially court: out 15, a l l the parties the appealable, other March satisfies trial and or compensation The The to, the by his resolved both ordered the recommended by and physician. 4 Having Had the t r i a l c o u r t found i n f a v o r of the employer, the e m p l o y e e w o u l d h a v e h a d a r i g h t t o an i m m e d i a t e a p p e a l b e c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t w o u l d have f u l l y and f i n a l l y c o n c l u d e d t h e c l a i m . S e e , e . g . , M i t c h e l l v . R o b i n s o n F o u n d r y , I n c . , 603 So. 2 d 1048 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992). I t s e e m s i n c o n g r u o u s t o h o l d t h a t an employee can immediately appeal an a d v e r s e compensability d e t e r m i n a t i o n b u t t h a t an e m p l o y e r c a n n o t . 3 On a p p e a l , t h e e m p l o y e r d o e s n o t q u e s t i o n t h e a u t h o r i t y of the t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g immediate payment of m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s upon n o t i c e , a h e a r i n g , and s u f f i c i e n t evidence. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t s u c h a p r o c e d u r e 4 17 2090734 "decide[d] trial the controvers[ies]," to Alabama If the Funeral concurring right Servs., i n the an order of appeal,' Inc., 984 finding an by the only applies potential 863 to method interlocutory So. "'"the 2d and i . e . , appealable." So. injury 2d at 1212 SCI (Moore, J . , 1099 proper compensable appellate review for a writ orders. See ( A l a . C i v . App. function mandamus] t o r e - e x a m i n e , of and awarding w i t h i n the meaning of the for order would l i e i n the p e t i t i o n not entered result). m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s were not f i n a l Co., order c o u r t became " ' c o n c l u s i v e and b i n d i n g , ' i . e . , f i n a l , 'subject the the [a Ex of Act, such an o f mandamus, which p a r t e Alabama Power 2003). petition However, for o r c o r r e c t e r r o r s i n any a i t is writ judgment of or is unknown i n c i v i l cases. An injured plaintiff cannot p e t i t i o n a court to f i n d a defendant liable f o r h i s or her injuries and order the defendant t o pay the plaintiff's ongoing m e d i c a l expenses i n advance of a f i n a l assessment of damages. Hence, t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r s u c h an o r d e r w o u l d be f i n a l and a p p e a l a b l e u n d e r § 12-22-2 has n e v e r a r i s e n . Some caselaw suggests t h a t such an order w o u l d be final and appealable. See E x p a r t e E l y t o n L a n d Co., 104 A l a . 88, 9 1 , 15 So. 9 3 9 , 940 ( 1 8 9 3 ) ("The t e s t o f t h e f i n a l i t y o f a d e c r e e t o s u p p o r t an a p p e a l i s n o t w h e t h e r t h e c a u s e r e m a i n s i n f i e r i , i n some r e s p e c t s , i n t h e c o u r t o f c h a n c e r y , a w a i t i n g f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s , necessary to e n t i t l e the p a r t i e s to the full measure of the r i g h t s i t has been d e c l a r e d t h e y have; but w h e t h e r t h e d e c r e e w h i c h has been r e n d e r e d , a s c e r t a i n s and declares these rights -i f these are ascertained and a d j u d g e d , t h e d e c r e e i s f i n a l , a n d w i l l s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . " ) . 18 2090734 decree (Ala. Ex p a r t e 678 , 2 64 Williams, of & D Logging, (quoting C i v . App. 2008) C State S o . 2 d 5 2 3 , 526 69 A l a . (1972), 3 1 1 , 316 certiorari, final 544, 547 or order. 9 3 0 , 936 288 A l a . 6 7 5 , i n turn A petition or a p e t i t i o n may n o t b e g r a n t e d judgment v . Cobb, quoting (1881)). mandamus, u n l i k e a n a p p e a l 3 So. 3d State f o r the writ f o r the writ f o rthe purpose of reviewing See Ex p a r t e ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003). A Amerigas, petition Southeast App. 2002) Co., 720 (quoting So. 2d 8 93, be account 937. of that f o r a writ respectfully Because review, an Fire of Ex 1998 ) ) . & Marine I n s . Thus, o f mandamus this to and p r o p e r l y awarded Ex p a r t e t h e main medical concludes injury benefits C & D Logging, opinion court determine a p p r o p r i a t e l y found a worker's injury. To t h e e x t e n t (Ala. Empire f o r a writ court compensable Ex p a r t e 8 94 use a p e t i t i o n whether a c i r c u i t to a A l a b a m a Med. C t r . , 835 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 5 ( A l a . Civ. cannot of 855 S o . 2 d mandamus " ' c a n n o t b e u s e d a s a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a n a p p e a l . ' " parte v. on 3 So. 3d a t otherwise, I dissent. of the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y order or controversies surrounding judgment o f any other deciding method a l l of present an i n j u r e d w o r k e r ' s r i g h t t o m e d i c a l 19 2090734 benefits such should an order be subject or judgment nonfinal, as happened would interlocutory, Otherwise, to appeal, subject to thousands judgment an of dollars. consideration, case, under an enforceable I f the finality as w h e t h e r see Ex p a r t e DCH employer of as civil judgment on r e s o l u t i o n o f i s s u e s such of whether characterized interim i n this immediately depends benefits, or be regardless being law. could worth that not even be many order or ripe f o r t o award p e r m a n e n t - d i s a b i l i t y Reg'l Med. Ctr., 1164-65, o r i s s u e s n o t even i n c o n t r o v e r s y , 571 So. 2d a t s u c h as t h e amount o f t e m p o r a r y - t o t a l - d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s due t h e i n j u r e d w o r k e r , the e m p l o y e r may only after the medical error i n awarding remedied. other an erroneous large those judgment been benefits expended probably long and a f t e r any forego be fully securing t o r e d r e s s t h e i n j u r y i n r e l i a n c e on and f i n d himself f o r reimbursement or h e r s e l f subject of the medical b e n e f i t s p a i d by h i s or h e r employer. United Parcel Serv., i f ever, cannot t h e i n j u r e d w o r k e r may resources order appellate review, b e n e f i t s have Meanwhile, financial obtain I n c . , 832 2002). 20 So. 2d 656 compensation to a and S e e Hedgemon v . (Ala. C i v . App. 2090734 On delay the o t h e r hand, the receipt t h e a p p e a l o f an o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t by an injured worker of needed medical b e n e f i t s , w h i c h d e l a y w o u l d be c o n t r a r y t o t h e g e n e r a l of the workers' Guard Co., 404 compensation So. 2d 79, laws. 81 See p a r t e Lumbermen's U n d e r w r i t i n g A l l i a n c e , 1995), our relation After 1981). Sec. In Ex 662 So. 2 d 1133 ( A l a . a d d r e s s e d t h e same b a s i c concern i n to the s t a y of compensation payments d u r i n g a p p e a l s . noting judgments n.3, supreme c o u r t purpose Brown v. M u r r a y ( A l a . C i v . App. may that several awarding states compensation t h e supreme c o u r t do not allow payments, 662 f o r stays So. 2d at of 1137 stated: " T h i s i s an a r e a o f w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w t h a t the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e might w i s h t o a d d r e s s by a s t a t u t e r e q u i r i n g t h a t an e m p l o y e r make a s h o w i n g o f 'irreparable harm,' in addition to filing a s u p e r s e d e a s bond, i n o r d e r to o b t a i n a s t a y of a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f an i n j u r e d w o r k e r . " 662 So. 2d at 1137. that the need f o r immediate appeal problem remains the l e g i s l a t u r e . t h a t may avoid provide a of The supreme properly benefits subject Thus, court balancing against exclusively an correctly an injured employer's within i t i s the l e g i s l a t u r e , recognized worker's right to the province of not t h i s court, a n y m e c h a n i s m b y w h i c h an i n j u r e d w o r k e r the delays concomitant with 21 the appeals p r o c e s s . can 2090734 I note, Underwriting issue however, Alliance, that supra, employer's allegedly judgment and using supreme postjudgment liability be Lumbermen's court lower compensation stay a dismiss filed against administrator workers' coerce holding signals an employer or a favorable that other compensation payor t h a t w r o n g f u l l y uses the appeals intentionally inflict I further note emotional that the treatment causes only disability that, i f the to the of T e n n e s s e e v. 2008) ultimate costs increased months had orthopedic claim. Stewart, 998 So. benefits surgeons, accruing should prevent awards of m e d i c a l in the employers 2d finding failed liable for process to 483, an to injury will e.g., 488 and only Team a add America (Ala. Civ. employer, provide medical App. that for 31 panel of 4 temporary-partial-disability Those needlessly benefits until 22 prolonged See, meantime). from workers' necessary i s compensable, the unreasonably of and of ( a f f i r m i n g a judgment civil d i s t r e s s on an i n j u r e d w o r k e r . withholding injury for compensation a means t o on to to That imposed refused court as settlement. may the appealing the parte i n j u r e d w o r k e r had workers' frivolously Ex the a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g a t o r t - o f - o u t r a g e a c t i o n the the in the considerations filing legislature appeals acts. of 2090734 As and i t stands, has decided deciding and that, benefits, that the compensation overrule as claim. should one in this case conclusions court of law j u d g m e n t was not final, no to I see nonfinal writing the judgment forth final. i n that of worker an to the workers' court plain filing findings applicability opinion however, concur w i t h does not opinion. concurs. 23 like the of fact and that i t believed that i t s I do, § § judgments. main satisfy should language of Having c o n c l u d e d t h a t the the injury i t does this final order although I believe sole basis as an medical of the matter to entirety with the enters appealable need to address the Thomas, J . , on henceforward t r e a t orders as the judgments do. and objected on court injured in conflict t h a t we trial an the spoken compensability Therefore, 25-5-88 and The the of resolve has circuit is final those cases entered a to right order completely legislature when a controversy adjudicates not the 25-5-88 the and judgment i s of § 25-5-88 Judge Bryan's main o p i n i o n for the reasons that set

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.