Scott A. Cascaden v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/05/2011 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 2100295 S c o t t A. Cascaden v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-10-16) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . S c o t t A. C a s c a d e n a p p e a l s f r o m a summary by the Mobile LLC, Circuit i n h i saction judgment Court i nfavor o f Winn-Dixie against that company arising entered Montgomery, under t h e 2100295 Workers' For Compensation Act, the reasons The evidence favorable 564 So. to 412, while worked. by As injuries to doctors h i s way additional not that involved and neck. he medical managers sustained therapy. better pain of the Winn-Dixie i n an in After store was the he in his treatment for back i t . that which at had he suffered treated by completed and Although the he physical months. again, two and accident, f o r about three in automobile Cascaden He Inc., following home f r o m a C h r i s t m a s p a r t y back experience most for accident, physical to was the therapy, h i s back f e l t began working of injuries light the result lower the in Guthrie, the his 1975. Balfour some o f a for attended on he Code reveals 1990), began 2001, Ala. affirm. H a n n e r s v. Cascaden seq., considered (Ala. 413 D e c e m b e r 18, been h o s t e d we record, see facts. On accident of herein, Cascaden, 2d pertinent 1999. stated § 25-5-1 e t He he then sought record is c l e a r , the p a r t i e s both i n d i c a t e i n t h e i r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s Cascaden left In Cascaden 2007, meat c u t t e r . As his part employment w i t h went b a c k of the to hiring 2 Winn-Dixie work in 2002. for Winn-Dixie process, he filled as a out a 2100295 medical the questionnaire. Regarding that medical f o l l o w i n g exchange o c c u r r e d during questionnaire, Cascaden's deposition: "Q. On h e r e , i t a s k e d i f y o u h a v e h a d a p r i o r b a c k i n j u r y and you p u t , no. And i t a s k s , have you consulted or been t r e a t e d by c l i n i c s , doctors, physicians or other p r a c t i t i o n e r s f o r reasons other t h a n an a n n u a l p h y s i c a l e x a m w i t h i n t h e p a s t five y e a r s ? And you c h e c k e d , no. And t h e n i t s a y s . Are y o u -- q u e s t i o n t h r e e , h a v e y o u e v e r i n j u r e d y o u r neck or b a c k ? And you p u t , no. B u t we've a l r e a d y c o v e r e d t h a t you d i d have t h e a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t i n 2001. So c a n y o u e x p l a i n f o r me why y o u d i d n o t put, yes, i n answers t o those questions? "A. I o n l y h a v e one e x p l a n a t i o n . I had a f e a r of not g e t t i n g t h e j o b i f I p u t those a n s w e r s down there. A n d i f t h e y knew t h a t I h a d t h o s e p r o b l e m s , t h e y may n o t h i r e me t o b e a m e a t c u t t e r a n d I needed the j o b . "Q. Okay. As f a r as t h e q u e s t i o n , have you consulted o r been t r e a t e d by c l i n i c s , doctors, physicians or other p r a c t i t i o n e r s f o r reasons other t h a n an a n n u a l p h y s i c a l e x a m w i t h i n t h e p a s t five y e a r s , you checked, n o ? "A. Could "Q. I see that? Sure. "A. I c a n ' t i m a g e -- I h a v e no a n s w e r c a n n o t i m a g e why I p u t , n o , on t h a t . "Q. no, Okay. Y o u ' l l a g r e e w i t h me t h a t t o t h a t q u e s t i o n was n o t t r u e ? f o r that. I the response, "A. T h a t ' s n o t t r u e . T h a t o n e was -- b e c a u s e I know I've been t r e a t e d f o r t h i n g s l i k e c o l d s and, you know, b r o n c h i t i s , t h i n g s l i k e t h a t . 3 2100295 "Q. And you have "A. been treated f o r back Yes. "Q. And t h e answer t o number t h r e e . i n j u r e d your neck or back? You p u t , "A. And was "A. No, Have you no. ever Yes. "Q. pain? i t wasn't. that answer correct? "Q. Okay. Well answer t r u t h f u l ? that's a "A. i t was not. "Q. now Was Ah, no. No, bad question. Was that A n d t h e n on t h e f r o n t p a g e w h e r e i t s a y s , do have o r have you had b a c k i n j u r y ? You p u t , t h a t an a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t a t t h e t i m e ? you no. "A. I t h i n k a t t h e t i m e t h a t was a c c u r a t e . I don't t h i n k t h a t a t t h e t i m e -- l i k e I s a i d , I was g e t t i n g better. Y o u g o t t o u n d e r s t a n d , my p a i n i n t h e f i r s t f e w y e a r s was n o t c o n s t a n t . I t wasn't u n t i l , you know, t h e l a s t few y e a r s t h a t i t has become so constant. "Q. Okay. automobile "A. of action Cascaden pain a back i n j u r y i n an Yes." One But you had s u f f e r e d accident? the occurred was injuries on working March forming 19, the 2008. f o r Winn-Dixie, i n h i s b a c k when l i f t i n g basis On he that the The present day, experienced a heavy box. 4 of next while a sharp day, he 2100295 told someone w o r k i n g five days returned off work, 2009, Winn-Dixie informed On an Winn-Dixie Dixie 5, epidural a heavy 2010, alleged that line Cascaden he On J u n e 2 4 , judgment. was 2010, R e l y i n g on provides, in his of Winn-Dixie § took injection, and 25-5-51, he had That same the an injured his working day, he against Compensation his back while employment with Winn- partially filed action Workers' disabled. a motion i t argued f o r a summary that Cascaden's misrepresented his medical application. Section 25-5-51 part: "No compensation s h a l l be a l l o w e d i f , a t t h e time of or i n the c o u r s e of e n t e r i n g i n t o employment or at the time of r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e of the removal of c o n d i t i o n s from a c o n d i t i o n a l o f f e r of employment, t h e employee k n o w i n g l y and f a l s e l y m i s r e p r e s e n t s i n w r i t i n g h i s o r h e r p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n and the condition i s aggravated or r e i n j u r e d in an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g out o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s o r her employment. 5 On incident. filed had permanently employment in pertinent he scope were b a r r e d b e c a u s e history under that and He of the i n c i d e n t . box. manager of the seeking benefits i n the and claims an the p a i n . again hurt h i s back w h i l e lifting assistant Cascaden working Cascaden and January Act. obtained about to work w i t h o u t a n o t h e r mention N o v e m b e r 2, for f o r Winn-Dixie 2100295 " A t t h e t i m e an e m p l o y e r m a k e s an u n c o n d i t i o n a l o f f e r of employment or removes c o n d i t i o n s p r e v i o u s l y p l a c e d on a c o n d i t i o n a l o f f e r o f e m p l o y m e n t , t h e employer shall provide the employee with the following written warning in bold type print, 'Misrepresentations as t o p r e e x i s t i n g p h y s i c a l o r mental conditions may void your workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s . ' I f t h e e m p l o y e r d e f e n d s on the g r o u n d t h a t t h e i n j u r y a r o s e i n any o r a l l o f the l a s t above s t a t e d ways, t h e burden of proof s h a l l be on t h e e m p l o y e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h e d e f e n s e . " Winn-Dixie portions of attached i t s of the t r a n s c r i p t his medical Cascaden He to motion, among of Cascaden's other things, deposition and records. filed a r e s p o n s e t o the summary-judgment m o t i o n . a d m i t t e d t h a t , i n t h e c o u r s e o f e n t e r i n g i n t o an employment r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h W i n n - D i x i e i n 2007, W i n n - D i x i e had him with asserted, back the some w r i t t e n warning however, that i n j u r y because as required W i n n - D i x i e had i t had o c c u r r e d by § provided 25-5-51. known a b o u t He his prior d u r i n g h i s p e r i o d of prior e m p l o y m e n t w i t h W i n n - D i x i e a s p a r t o f an e v e n t a s s o c i a t e d with that have employment. relied on his Thus, false he argued, Winn-Dixie representations questionnaire concerning his previous result, argued, he misrepresentation Winn-Dixie back could could in not the medical injury, and, not assert defense to h i s worker's compensation 6 as a a claims. 2100295 Winn-Dixie f i l e d is not a m a t e r i a l element 5-51 and that Winn-Dixie had back i n the car even reliance o f t h e d e f e n s e e s t a b l i s h e d by § November 22, i f i t were, prior 2010, Cascaden knowledge that the court trial judgment i n f a v o r of W i n n - D i x i e . provided substantial defense set f o r t h present any filed denied. Cascaden In Act another i n which court he had evidence to prove injured entered a his summary I t found that Winn-Dixie of a l l the in opposition a postjudgment elements motion, had to that which the had of the failed to defense. trial court appeals. case a trial set forth evidence failed i n § 25-5-51 and t h a t C a s c a d e n material Cascaden had 25¬ accident. On that, a r e p l y i n which i t argued that the arising court under the Workers' entered a following summary s t a n d a r d of Compensation judgment, review: "The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s as f o l l o w s : " ' I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that a motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d i n s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . C l a y v. R i v e r L a n d i n g C o r p . , 601 So. 2 d 919 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . I n c o n s i d e r i n g a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t must v i e w a l l reasonable i n f e r e n c e s from the evidence i n 7 this 2100295 a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the non-moving party. W i l l s v. K l i n g e n b e c k , 455 So. 2d 806 (Ala. 1984). F u r t h e r , t h e movant has t h e b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . B u r k s v. P i c k w i c k H o t e l , 607 So. 2 d 187 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . I f the movant meets i t s b u r d e n , t h e n the burden s h i f t s to the non-moving p a r t y , who m u s t show b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t does e x i s t in order to withstand the motion for summary j u d g m e n t . B u r k s , 607 So. 2 d 187; C l a y , 601 So. 2 d 9 1 9 . ' " Page v. 2004) Cox & Cox, (quoting 1016-17 Warren contends it employed him he had were not misrepresentation I n Ex parte 1992), our 2d 413, Mfg., 417 Inc., (Ala. Civ. 634 that injured Winn-Dixie did i n the medical his back. subject to defense contained not 2d 1015, already Thus, Winn-Dixie's in § supreme court judicially rely represented 8 the that argues, he knew his assertion of the 2d 1036 25-5-51. 603 created So. a employee's worker's compensation falsely on q u e s t i o n n a i r e when S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , e m p l o y e e has So. App. 1994)). contained e m p l o y e r t o an when t h e So. i n 2007 b e c a u s e W i n n - D i x i e previously claims an v. Rich misrepresentations for 892 ( A l a . C i v . App. Cascaden (Ala. Inc., that he or defense action she did 2100295 not have defense, a prior injury. the court Setting f o r t h the elements of that wrote: "We a d o p t t h e s t a n d a r d s e t f o r t h i n 1C L a r s o n , The Law o f W o r k m e n ' s C o m p e n s a t i o n § 4 7 . 5 3 (1986), which provides that an e m p l o y e e who makes f a l s e statements about his physical condition in a p r e - e m p l o y m e n t a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l be d e n i e d 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 when t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s a r e present: " ' ( 1 ) The e m p l o y e e m u s t h a v e k n o w i n g l y a n d w i l l f u l l y made a f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a s t o his physical condition. (2) The e m p l o y e r must have relied upon the false r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and t h i s r e l i a n c e must have been a s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t o r i n the h i r i n g . (3) There must have been a causal c o n n e c t i o n between the f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and t h e i n j u r y . ' "1C L a r s o n § 4 7 . 5 3 a t 8 - 3 9 4 . The b u r d e n i s on employer to prove each of these elements." Southern this judicially prove in E n e r g y Homes, that 603 created So. 2d defense, i t had r e l i e d at 1039-40. Thus, an e m p l o y e r was on t h e e m p l o y e e ' s the under required to misrepresentation h i r i n g the employee. After Energy Homes, provision motion. our supreme on the court issued i t s decision l e g i s l a t u r e amended which Winn-Dixie As p r e v i o u s l y quoted, based that 9 § 25-5-51 i t s provision i n Southern to add the summary-judgment states: 2100295 "No c o m p e n s a t i o n s h a l l be a l l o w e d i f , at the time of or i n the c o u r s e of e n t e r i n g i n t o employment or at the time of r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e of the removal of c o n d i t i o n s from a c o n d i t i o n a l o f f e r of employment, the employee k n o w i n g l y and f a l s e l y m i s r e p r e s e n t s i n w r i t i n g h i s o r h e r p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n and the condition i s a g g r a v a t e d o r r e i n j u r e d i n an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g out o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s o r her employment." This court § 25-5-51 r e c e n t l y set f o r t h the elements that an employer must of a defense under prove: " [ T ] o p r e v a i l u n d e r [§ 2 5 - 5 - 5 1 ] , [ a n e m p l o y e r i s ] required to prove that (1) i n t h e c o u r s e o f [ t h e employee]'s entering into his employment r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h [ t h e e m p l o y e r ] , (2) [ t h e e m p l o y e r ] provided [ t h e employee] with the w r i t t e n warning set f o r t h i n § 2 5 - 5 - 5 1 , (3) [ t h e e m p l o y e e ] k n o w i n g l y a n d falsely misrepresented his physical or mental condition, (4) [ t h e e m p l o y e e ] ' s misrepresentation was made i n w r i t i n g , and (5) [ t h e employee]'s c o n d i t i o n was a g g r a v a t e d o r r e i n j u r e d i n an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g out o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment. § 2 5 - 5 - 5 1 , A l a . Code 1975." Hornady Truck L i n e s , C i v . App. 2007). I n c . v . H o w a r d , 985 Absent from the s t a t u t o r y defense i s a requirement that on The the question should despite in employee's the engraft the false before such this a So. 2 d 4 6 9 , an e m p l o y e r statements court, requirement legislature's failure statute. 10 misrepresentation prove that in hiring then, on to l i s t i t relied the i s whether the 477 ( A l a . employee. this statutory such a court defense requirement 2100295 One commentator an e m p l o y e r i s n o t the has i t was that, under the statute, r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e r e l i a n c e as an e l e m e n t misrepresentation law, recognized required defense, to do even though, under p r i o r of case so: "The j u d i c i a l m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n d e f e n s e a p p l i e s only i f the employer has relied on the false r e p r e s e n t a t i o n when m a k i n g t h e d e c i s i o n t o h i r e t h e employee. The s t a t u t o r y m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n d e f e n s e , on the other hand, does not expressly require r e l i a n c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e e m p l o y e r . To d a t e , no c a s e h a s c o m m e n t e d on t h i s d i f f e r e n c e , b u t i t c a n o n l y be a s s u m e d t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intentionally failed to i n s e r t r e l i a n c e as an element of the s t a t u t o r y d e f e n s e , so t h e c o u r t s s h o u l d n o t feel o b l i g a t e d t o e n g r a f t t h e i r own requirement." 1 T e r r y A. 1998) M o o r e , 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 § 12:31 (footnotes recognized by language of assert that the the omitted). this defense employee. on such e.g., 6-5-101, a misrepresentation the opposite contained the Hornady in this Truck treatise Lines, t h e r e i n , an legislature requirement Ala. had Code was i t chosen 1975 fully to (cause do of 6-5-103, A l a . 11 Code 1975 and as plain that, e m p l o y e r must r e q u i r e s t h a t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n be party"); § the include a requirement employee's m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n Moreover, the including by in noted § 25-5-51 does not i t relied § court As (West in to prove hiring capable so. of See, action of "acted on (cause of 2100295 action which of deceit requires [injured party] Winn-Dixie points include in its act[ed] the fact that statutory must prove implies that the to elements. See Comm'n, ("Under the Aletris, a rule inclusion of requirements principle of we created engrafting Because that no to its misrepresentations to assert contained Cascaden's rely provide therein, on on Alabama 658 any Criminal (Ala. est 1993) exclusion to Given the so implies the t o what the onto an express l e g i s l a t u r e has § 25-5-51. employer on an that trial prove defense Winn-Dixie when i t h i r e d h i m the to employee's misrepresentation contention which to reverse an included."). detriment 12 exclude units require judgment. defense intention his misrepresentations a basis the law not not to 651, a r e l i a n c e element does that to the r e a s o n t o add § 25-5-51 2d as construction, i n the relied not i t see elements C n t y . v. expression requirements And, misrepresentation So. upon l e g i s l a t u r e chose intended statutory foregoing, by of ... injury"). certain the 620 his the Jefferson Info. other scheme claim Justice exclude to legislature Ctr. representation ... out, employer additional "willful court's does did not summary 2100295 Cascaden next misrepresentation Dixie argues that defense contained d i d not u t i l i z e boldface r e q u i r e d by t h a t s e c t i o n . to the t r i a l In f a c t , to the t r i a l court brief the course Winn-Dixie forth of entering ... [ h e ] was i n § 25-5-51." made f o r t h e f i r s t Co., 612 Based failed to So. 2d on This 410 Winn- warning argument stated in "does not d i s p u t e that i n relationship with will not address arguments See A n d r e w s v . M e r r i t t O i l ( A l a . 1992). that we the conclude trial that court Cascaden committed has error when i t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Winn D i x i e . a result, judgment that i s due t o be affirmed. AFFIRMED. Pittman, Bryan, the w i t h a w r i t t e n w a r n i n g as s e t court foregoing, demonstrate specifically employment t i m e on a p p e a l . 409, the provided the d i d n o t make t h i s Cascaden an assert i n § 25-5-51 because t h a t he into cannot t y p e when p r i n t i n g Cascaden court. his Winn-Dixie Thomas, and 13 Moore, J J . , concur. As

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.