G. UB.MK Constructors v. Howard Lee Davis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/19/2011 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, 2011 2100282 G.UB.MK C o n s t r u c t o r s v. Howard Lee Davis Appeal from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t (CV-07-326) Court MOORE, J u d g e . G.UB.MK judgment court") Constructors entered by t h e C o l b e r t on remand Constructors ("the e m p l o y e r " ) from v. D a v i s , this Circuit court's appeals Court decision from a ("the t r i a l i n G.UB.MK 45 So. 3 d 1277 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . 2100282 In the judgment entered Howard Lee Davis d i s a b l e d as remand, a r e s u l t of the i n j u r y he had ("the on employee") pain the to trial be court virtually c a u s e d by the totally work-related s u s t a i n e d t o h i s l e f t hand, and, f i n d i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t awarded the employee found b a s e d on that permanent-total- d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s p u r s u a n t to the Workers' Compensation A c t ("the A c t " ) , A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-1 e t s e q . We reverse. Background In Davis, of the the t r i a l 1 employee's March employee result supra, of sustained an extending up b a c k , and the that his pain job as a machinist. 2006, injury that injury, h i s arm 15, and Id. c o u r t f o u n d t h a t , as a r e s u l t to on-the-job his left hand, employee e x p e r i e n c e d into his shoulder, 1278-80. The that, court a pain upper to perform trial the as severe n e c k , and affected his a b i l i t y at accident, his also f o u n d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s i n j u r y c a u s e d him d e b i l i t a t i n g p a i n . I n D a v i s , the p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t the employee's i n j u r y r e s u l t e d f r o m an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t o f h i s employment w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r , and t h e d e t a i l s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e e m p l o y e e ' s i n j u r y can be found i n that o p i n i o n . The only issues p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r r e s o l u t i o n i n D a v i s were (1) w h e t h e r t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c o m p e n s a t i o n s h o u l d be b a s e d on a s c h e d u l e d i n j u r y u n d e r t h e A c t o r on a d i s a b i l i t y t o t h e b o d y as a w h o l e and (2) t h e e x t e n t o f D a v i s ' s impairment or d i s a b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g from the i n j u r y . See 45 So. 3d a t 1278. 1 2 2100282 Id. a t 1280. As a r e s u l t , the t r i a l court found that the e m p l o y e e was p e r m a n e n t l y a n d t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d , a n d i t a w a r d e d him workers' out a t § 25-5-57(a)(3)a., which sets scheduled In compensation b e n e f i t s o u t s i d e forth the b e n e f i t s member. 1975 ("the s c h e d u l e " ) , payable I d . The e m p l o y e r reviewing acknowledged A l a . Code the t r i a l that the f o r an i n j u r y to a appealed. court's trial the schedule s e t court judgment, had this referred court to two r e c o g n i z e d grounds f o r awarding b e n e f i t s o u t s i d e t h e schedule, i.e., 2d the test 831 s e t o u t i n Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2002), and t h e " p a i n Masterbrand Cabinets, Civ. App. 2 0 0 5 ) , Inc., Drummond Company, 837 So. exception" recognized i n I n c . v. J o h n s o n , 984 So. 2d 1136 ( A l a . affirmed, Ex p a r t e 984 So. 2d 1146 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . Masterbrand See D a v i s , Cabinets, 45 So. 3d a t 1281. After the reviewing trial court, t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t had been p r e s e n t e d this court concluded to present effects of h i s l e f t - h a n d i n j u r y extended t o other p a r t s of h i s Thus, and i n t e r f e r e d this court with concluded evidence t h a t t h e employee had failed body sufficient to their that 3 indicating efficiency. the t r i a l that the I d . a t 1284. court's award o f 2100282 b e n e f i t s outside the schedule exception This recognized c o u l d n o t be s u s t a i n e d u n d e r t h e i n Ex p a r t e Drummond Co., s u p r a . c o u r t then addressed the t r i a l court's 2 Id. r e l i a n c e on t h e " p a i n e x c e p t i o n , " w h i c h a l s o a l l o w s b e n e f i t s t o be a w a r d e d outside the schedule, occurred i n t h a t area c a s e was on a p p e a l . recent and noted that recent changes had of workers' compensation law w h i l e the I d . a t 1285. T h i s c o u r t s u m m a r i z e d those c h a n g e s as f o l l o w s : " A t t h e t i m e t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d on December 1, 2008, M a s t e r b r a n d C a b i n e t s , I n c . v . J o h n s o n , 984 So. 2d 1136 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e M a s t e r b r a n d C a b i n e t s , I n c . , 984 So. 2d 1146 ( A l a . 2007), served as t h e o n l y possible authority allowing a t r i a l court to treat ' d e b i l i t a t i n g ' pain as a way o f a v o i d i n g t h e s c h e d u l e . T h i s c o u r t has s i n c e o v e r r u l e d Johnson and h e l d , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h f o o t n o t e 11 f r o m Ex p a r t e Drummond [Co., 837 So. 2d I n Davis, supra, t h i s court concluded that the e f f e c t s of t h e employee's i n j u r y had n o t extended t o o t h e r p a r t s o f h i s body and had n o t i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y . 837 So. 2d a t 1284. Thus, on remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t f r e e to r e c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e w a r r a n t e d an a w a r d o f b e n e f i t s o u t s i d e t h e schedule under t h e e x c e p t i o n addressed i n Ex p a r t e Drummond Co., a n d , as a r e s u l t , t h a t i s s u e i s n o t before t h i s court i n t h i s appeal. See N o r a n d a l U.S.A., I n c . v. G r a b e n , [Ms. 2080679, M a r c h 12, 2010] So. 3d , (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ( " U n d e r t h e 'law o f t h e c a s e ' d o c t r i n e , ' " [ t ] h e i s s u e s d e c i d e d b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t become t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e on remand t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t f r e e t o r e c o n s i d e r t h o s e i s s u e s . " ' " ( q u o t i n g T r a v i s v. T r a v i s , 875 So. 2d 1212, 1214 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e S.T.S., 806 So. 2d 336, 341 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ) ) . 2 4 2100282 831, 836 n.11 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ] , t h a t p a i n i s o l a t e d t o a s c h e d u l e d member may be s u f f i c i e n t t o remove t h e i n j u r y from the schedule i f t h a t p a i n i s t o t a l l y , o r virtually totally, physically disabling. See N o r a n d a l U.S.A., I n c . v . G r a b e n , 18 So. 3d 405, 416 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ('Graben I ' ) . "As more r e c e n t l y d i s c u s s e d i n N o r a n d a l U.S.A., I n c . v. G r a b e n , [Ms. 2080679, M a r c h 12, 2010] So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ('Graben I I ' ) : " ' T h i s c o u r t p h r a s e d t h e [new " p a i n exception"] t e s t as r e q u i r i n g p r o o f o f total, or virtually total, physical d i s a b i l i t y b e c a u s e Ex p a r t e Drummond h o l d s t h a t an i n j u r y t o a s c h e d u l e d member may n o t be t r e a t e d as u n s c h e d u l e d b a s e d on evidence of the v o c a t i o n a l disability a r i s i n g therefrom. 837 So. 2d a t 834 n.8 "'Ex p a r t e Drummond f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t s t h i s court that the pain exception should be c o n s t r u e d s t r i c t l y . As t h i s c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y r e c o g n i z e d , t h e Drummond c o u r t i n t e n d e d "a r e i n i n g i n ... o f t h e manner o f computing benefits where the only impairment claimed i s to a scheduled member." Ex p a r t e F o r t James O p e r a t i n g Co., 905 So. 2d 836, 844 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004). Ex p a r t e Drummond c r e a t e d a "more stringent test" f o r circumventing the l e g i s l a t e d remedy. A l a b a m a Workmen's Comp. S e l f - I n s u r e r s Guar. A s s ' n , I n c . v. W i l s o n , 993 So. 2d 4 5 1 , 453 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . Accordingly, any judicially created e x c e p t i o n t o t h e s c h e d u l e must be a p p l i e d narrowly. See Ex parte Addison F a b r i c a t o r s , I n c . , 989 So. 2d 498 ( A l a . 2007). The p a i n e x c e p t i o n s h o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d so t h a t i t swallows t h e r u l e o f e x c l u s i v i t y and r e t u r n s t h e law t o i t s p r e 5 2100282 Ex parte Drummond s t a t e i n w h i c h t h e schedule almost never controlled the c o m p e n s a t i o n due f o r an i m p a i r m e n t t o a l i s t e d member. See 1 T. 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 § 14:16 (Supp. 2 00 9 ) . Just recognizing a pain exception to the s c h e d u l e i n j e c t s u n c e r t a i n t y i n t o an a r e a p u r p o s e f u l l y i n t e n d e d t o be c e r t a i n , s e e Ex p a r t e A d d i s o n F a b r i c a t o r s , I n c . , 989 So. 2d a t 502-03 ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e instituted the schedule to minimize c o n t r o v e r s y a n d t o a s s u r e s p e e d y payment o f b e n e f i t s ) ; t h e t e s t s h o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d in s u c h a manner as t o a d d t o t h a t u n c e r t a i n t y and t o l e a d t o t h e type o f litigation the l e g i s l a t u r e specifically intended t o a v o i d when i t c r e a t e d t h e schedule. See i d . I n k e e p i n g w i t h Ex p a r t e Drummond a n d t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t behind the schedule, the test i s not satisfied by evidence t h a t the worker experiences "abnormal," constant, and severe pain e v e n when n o t u s i n g t h e a f f e c t e d member, s e e J o h n s o n , 984 So. 2d a t 1144-45; r a t h e r , i t r e q u i r e s competent proof that whatever pain the worker experiences completely, or almost completely, physically d e b i l i t a t e s the worker. "'In d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence s a t i s f i e s t h i s exceedingly high standard, a trial c o u r t must c o n s i d e r a l l l e g a l evidence bearing on the existence, d u r a t i o n , i n t e n s i t y , and d i s a b l i n g e f f e c t o f p a i n i n t h e s c h e d u l e d member, i n c l u d i n g i t s own o b s e r v a t i o n s . See g e n e r a l l y Nance v. Nance, 640 So. 2d 953 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994). That evidence would i n c l u d e the w o r k e r ' s own s u b j e c t i v e c o m p l a i n t s , e v e n i f those complaints a r e unsupported by o r c o n t r a d i c t the medical evidence. "Graben I I , So. 3d a t 6 ." 2100282 Davis, law 45 S o . 3 d a t 1 2 8 5 - 8 6 . regarding the pain Because exception o f t h e changes that had occurred the t r i a l court's c a s e was on a p p e a l , we r e v e r s e d remanded for reconsideration. the case r e m a n d , we i n s t r u c t e d the t r i a l b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e i n the record, left hand disables On stated, of t h e employee court totally, while the judgment and I d . at 1286. " t o determine the pain i nthe whether, isolated or v i r t u a l l y On i n the totally, him." I d . remand, the t r i a l i n pertinent court entered a judgment, which part: " T h i s c o u r t h a s s t u d i e d [ N o r a n d a l U.S.A., I n c . v . G r a b e n , 18 S o . 3 d 405 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ] , a n d [Norandal U.S.A., I n c . v . G r a b e n , [Ms. 2 0 8 0 6 7 9 , March 12, 2010] So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ] , a n d h a s gone b a c k a n d s t u d i e d t h e r e c o r d a n d i t s n o t e s a n d r e f l e c t e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y t h a t was e l i c i t e d i n o p e n c o u r t on O c t o b e r 6, 2 0 0 8 . This c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e p a i n i n t h e e m p l o y e e [ ' s ] ... l e f t h a n d v i r t u a l l y t o t a l l y d i s a b l e s h i m . The p a i n t h a t [ t h e employee] t e s t i f i e d about i n open c o u r t was not only abnormal, constant and severe but virtually debilitating. This court observed [the employee] t e s t i f y i n g about t h e p a i n and observed him i n c o u r t b e f o r e and a f t e r h i s t e s t i m o n y . This court saw [ t h e employee's] hand where t h e s k i n , blood v e s s e l s and n e r v e s had been r i p p e d from t h e t o p o f his hand. This c o u r t r e c o l l e c t s t h a t Dr. C l a r k prescribed a n a r c o t i c to help [ t h e employee] d e a l with the pain. Dr. C l a r k t e s t i f i e d that [the employee complained of 'severe pain ... that interferes with h i s a c t i v i t i e s . ' The d o c t o r a n d 7 2100282 [the employee] referenced an 'aching pain,' a ' t h r o b b i n g p a i n , ' a n d p a i n t h a t on a s c a l e o f 1 t o 10, a v e r a g e d a n 8. T h i s e v i d e n c e was n o t r e f u t e d . " T h i s c o u r t i n i t s ORDER AND F I N A L JUDGMENT o f D e c e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 8 , ... f o u n d t h e e m p l o y e e [ ' s ] ... p a i n t o be ' d e b i l i t a t i n g . ' This court found then that the pain i n this worker's left hand was p h y s i c a l l y d e b i l i t a t i n g a n d s t a t e s a n d f i n d s now t h a t t h i s p a i n , i s o l a t e d t o t h e l e f t hand o f [ t h e employee], v i r t u a l l y t o t a l l y d i s a b l e s him." (Capitalization trial court i n original.) again ordered Based on t h o s e the employer findings, the t o p a y t h e employee p e r m a n e n t - t o t a l - d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s and t o pay t h e cost of any reasonably necessary medical treatment employee's i n j u r y , i n c l u d i n g any treatment The a motion seeking employer f i l e d the judgment, appeals again. which the t r i a l cases fact, if standard by i n part, the finding that finding court the for pain. amend, o r v a c a t e denied. The employer o f Review § that, i nworkers' 25-5-81(e), A l a . Code " [ i ] n reviewing of the c i r c u i t i s supported court pure shall compensation 1975, which findings of n o t be by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence." The r e c o r d from t h e p r e v i o u s a p p e a l , been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h i s a p p e a l . 3 has to alter, of appellate review i s governed provides, necessary to 3 Standard The related 8 reversed § 25- c a s e no. 2080547, 2100282 5-81(e)(2). "Substantial evidence" weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d impartial fact 680 judgment sought can reasonably t o be p r o v e d . ' " i s "'evidence of persons i n the exercise of infer Ex p a r t e the existence Trinity of the Indus., I n c . , S o . 2 d 2 6 2 , 2 68 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ( q u o t i n g W e s t v . F o u n d e r s Assurance such C o . , 547 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 871 (Ala. Life 1989)). Analysis In order virtually pain f o r p a i n i n a s c h e d u l e d member t o be t o t a l l y , o r totally, debilitating must be s u c h t h a t prevents t o t h e b o d y as a w h o l e , i t completely, v. G r a b e n , evidence The that After t h e employee t o meet t h a t trial court at a employee determined aching o f 8 on a complained to Dr. high pain scale 9 that o f 1 t o 10 Clark, we substantial standard." in hisleft Joseph (Ala. the record, d i d not present correctly level So. 3d reviewing "exceedingly complained of throbbing, rated carefully with N o r a n d a l U.S.A., I n c . [Ms. 2080679, M a r c h 12, 2010] App. 2 0 1 0 ) . conclude completely, t h e worker from engaging i n p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s the u n i n j u r e d p a r t s o f h i s o r h e r body. Civ. or almost that Id.at t h e employee h a n d t h a t he and t h a t his the authorized 2100282 treating in orthopedic his left Furthermore, s u r g e o n , on J u l y hand at "interferes least at one 31, 2008, with point that his the pain activities." during his medical t r e a t m e n t o f t h e employee, Dr. C l a r k had p r e s c r i b e d L o r t a b for t h e employee However, his left him. six t o use t o combat h i s l e f t - h a n d t h e employee hand had t o t a l l y , To t h e c o n t r a r y , weeks work as against over after a a year, effects his left and t h a t testified tiller on t h e employee 4 hand, around his left from with h a n d , b u t he d i d n o t t e s t i f y hand prevents h i m i n a n y way five the that of him t o jobfor job at the from otherwise not use the adverse vibration. He the pain the pain also in his from h i s l e f t fully using A t one p o i n t , t h e e m p l o y e e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d w o r k e d i n J a n u a r y 2007; h o w e v e r , he h a d e a r l i e r t e s t i f i e d he h a d w o r k e d t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 2007, t h a t he h a d b e e n o f f a t t h a t t i m e , a n d t h a t he h a d r e s u m e d w o r k i n J a n u a r y f o r f o u r days b e f o r e b e i n g l a i d o f f a g a i n . 4 10 or restrictions t o do t h a t t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t a l changes i n c r e a s e left that, reassigned because in debilitated s t a t e d t h a t he c o u l d h i s house hand the pain he p e r f o r m e d t h a t he r e m a i n e d a b l e The e m p l o y e e that testified inspector that pain. totally, the employer quality-assurance using garden or v i r t u a l l y his injury, time of the t r i a l . a d i d not t e s t i f y 7.5 the last that laid 2008 2100282 uninjured parts o f h i s body, including h i s dominant right hand. The the evidence i n the record employee e x p e r i e n c e s hand, but the record determination debilitates that does such t h e employee under 25-5-57(a)(4), judgment court of thet r i a l unremitting pain not support pain t h e employee. awarding § severe, would s u s t a i n a f i n d i n g totally, Thus, under § or v i r t u a l l y court permanent-total-disability A l a . Code court 1975. We a n d remand t h e c a s e to determine theappropriate employee i nh i s l e f t the t r i a l the t r i a l that court's totally, erred i n benefits reverse the f o rt h e t r i a l amount o f b e n e f i t s due t h e 25-5-57(a)(3). REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, without P . J . , and Bryan, writings. 11 J . , concur i n the r e s u l t ,

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.