Lucas Jasper Denmark v. Industrial Manufacturing Specialists, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

rel: 05/04/2012 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, 2011-2012 2101113 Lucas Jasper Denmark v. I n d u s t r i a l Manufacturing S p e c i a l i s t s , Inc. Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-900122) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g In t h i s workers' appeals Judge. compensation from a judgment d e n y i n g compensation J a s p e r Denmark permanent-partial-disability t o h i m f o r an i n j u r y ankle and denying double case, Lucas he r e c e i v e d t o h i s l e f t compensation. 2101113 The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e i n d i c a t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g . was a 16-year-old Manufacturing in a part-time Specialists, work-related employee of Denmark Industrial I n c . ( " I M S " ) , when he was i n j u r e d accident on March 9, 2006. Denmark t e s t i f i e d t h a t one o f h i s d u t i e s a t IMS was t o u s e a b a n d saw to c u t metal-bar s t o c k , o r raw m e t a l , to 20 f e e t l o n g , into s m a l l e r segments. a c c i d e n t , Denmark a n d a n o t h e r bar stock weighing w h i c h was s o m e t i m e s up On t h e d a y o f t h e IMS e m p l o y e e were l o a d i n g m e t a l - 1,300 pounds o n t o a t a b l e i n o r d e r t o p l a c e i t o n t o a c o n v e y o r r o l l e r so t h a t i t c o u l d be c u t b y t h e b a n d saw. the fell The o t h e r bar stock e m p l o y e e was u s i n g a f o r k l i f t t o h e l p move o n t o t h e t a b l e when one e n d o f t h e b a r s t o c k on Denmark. Denmark was crushed under the b a r s t o c k , s u f f e r i n g i n t e r n a l i n j u r i e s t o h i s abdomen a n d i n t e s t i n e s . a l s o s u f f e r e d an open f r a c t u r e t o h i s l e f t Denmark injuries had s u r g e r y have healed, for his internal and Denmark 10, left 2006, Denmark h a d a n o t h e r ankle. orthopaedic During that ankle. injuries. suffered p h y s i c a l i m p a i r m e n t as a r e s u l t o f t h o s e He Those no permanent injuries. On M a r c h surgery to r e p a i r h i s f r a c t u r e d surgery, Dr. Scott Sharp, s u r g e o n , i n s e r t e d two s c r e w s i n t o Denmark's 2 an left 2101113 ankle. Dr. Sharp monitored Denmark's T h r e e weeks a f t e r t h e s u r g e r y , fracture require i n Denmark's l e f t surgery. On Dr. ankle, July 7, ankle as i t healed. a lateral Sharp d i s c o v e r e d but 2006, that four fracture did months not after the a c c i d e n t , Dr. S h a r p d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Denmark's a n k l e i n j u r y had 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 , and he a l l o w e d Denmark t o return to testified f u l l - d u t y work w i t h t h a t he no restrictions. Dr. d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t Denmark had Sharp sustained a p e r m a n e n t p h y s i c a l i m p a i r m e n t as a r e s u l t o f h i s l e f t - a n k l e injury. We n o t e t h a t t h e s c r e w s r e m a i n i n Denmark's a n k l e that they w i l l Denmark testified remain there had t h a t he played "indefinitely." soccer he s a i d , he endurance he had that before the injury. a t t e m p t e d t o resume p l a y i n g i n t h e 2006; however, and had did before not the have the He fall of same s p e e d or accident. In January 2007, Denmark s o u g h t f u r t h e r t r e a t m e n t f r o m Dr. S h a r p f o r p a i n in his left Denmark overuse. ankle. probably Dr. t h a t t i m e was Dr. had Sharp t e s t i f i e d a left-ankle Sharp d i d not believe sprain at that time, resulting from Denmark's a n k l e r e l a t e d t o t h e M a r c h 2006 3 that, accident. pain at 2101113 Denmark t e s t i f i e d his left ankle. t h a t he h a s c o n t i n u e d The p a i n sharp and t h r o b b i n g . [his] take t o have p a i n i n i s i n t e r m i t t e n t but i s at Denmark s a i d t h e p a i n f o o t o r k i n d o f up [ h i s ] l e g . " prescribed pain medication t r a v e l s "toward Denmark s a i d he does n o t f o r h i s ankle p a i n has n o t a f f e c t e d h i s d a y - t o - d a y a c t i v i t i e s . he experiences stands left pain and s w e l l i n g i n h i s l e f t f o r an h o u r o r two. a n k l e becomes After judgment partial When he s q u a t s , pain, and t h e He s a i d t h a t ankle when he Denmark s a i d , h i s stiff. an o r e t e n u s finding times that hearing, Denmark the t r i a l had court sustained entered a a permanent p h y s i c a l impairment o f h i s l e f t a n k l e and awarded him b e n e f i t s f o r a 10% permanent p a r t i a l l o s s of a foot, pursuant to 1975. § 25-5-57(a)(3)a.14, A l a . Code Because a l r e a d y p a i d Denmark t e m p o r a r y - t o t a l - d i s a b i l i t y in excess injury o f what Denmark was to h i s foot, codified at § pursuant entitled IMS to receive f o r the schedule not required t o pay Denmark any a d d i t i o n a l c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r h i s p e r m a n e n t partial disability. 4 was had compensation t o the compensation 25-5-57(a)(3), IMS 2101113 The trial court also Alabama's c h i l d - l a b o r saw. determined that IMS h a d violated l a w s b y h a v i n g Denmark o p e r a t e a b a n d H o w e v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d , t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e b a n d saw h a d c a u s e d Denmark's i n j u r y o r t h a t he h a d a c t u a l l y b e e n o p e r a t i n g t h e b a n d saw a t t h e t i m e o f t h e accident. was "no T h e r e f o r e , the t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d , because t h e r e nexus o r c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between [ D e n m a r k ' s ] a n k l e i n j u r i e s a n d h i s o p e r a t i o n o f t h e b a n d saw," Denmark was n o t entitled t o double requested. compensation for his injury, as he h a d Denmark a p p e a l e d f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t . Denmark c o n t e n d s t h a t h i 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 the l o s s of the use o f h i s l e f t l e g , n o t merely h i s l e f t as the t r i a l review c o u r t had i n workers' found. compensation The standard of cases foot, appellate i s governed by 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s : "(1) I n r e v i e w i n g t h e s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f s e t f o r t h h e r e i n and o t h e r l e g a l i s s u e s , r e v i e w by t h e Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a presumption of correctness. "(2) I n r e v i e w i n g p u r e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h e f i n d i n g o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l n o t be r e v e r s e d if that finding i s supported by substantial evidence." 5 § 2101113 Substantial evidence i s "'evidence of such weight q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of impartial j u d g m e n t 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 to be proved.'" Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y 262, 268 ( A l a . 1996) Co. of Florida, Indus., I n c . , 680 ( q u o t i n g West v. F o u n d e r s 547 Additionally, a t r i a l So. 2d 870, 871 Life and sought So. 2d Assurance (Ala. 1989)). c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on conflicting e v i d e n c e a r e c o n c l u s i v e i f t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d by substantial evidence. (Ala. Edwards C i v . App. v. 1995). Jesse Stutts, Inc., 655 So. 2d "This c o u r t ' s r o l e i s not to 1012 reweigh the e v i d e n c e , b u t t o a f f i r m the judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t i f its f i n d i n g s a r e 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 and, i f s o , if the Bostrom Civ. correct legal conclusions are drawn therefrom." S e a t i n g , I n c . v. A d d e r h o l d , 852 So. 2d 784, App. 794 ( A l a . 2002). Denmark a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e a n k l e i s above t h e foot and a l s o b e c a u s e t h e p a i n f r o m h i s a n k l e i n j u r y e x t e n d s t o h i s leg, he s h o u l d be c o m p e n s a t e d f o r t h e l o s s o f use o f t h e l e g , which his would encompass an i n j u r y to the f o o t . In support of a r g u m e n t , Denmark c i t e s c a s e s s t a n d i n g f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n that i n j u r i e s e x t e n d i n g from a larger 6 s c h e d u l e d member t o a 2101113 smaller component of that member should be compensated as i n j u r i e s t o t h e l a r g e r s c h e d u l e d member, n o t t o t h e b o d y as a whole. 1026, See, e . g . , 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 1032 n. 8 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ; W o l f e v. D u n l o p Tire C o r p . , 660 So. 2d 1345 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) (an i n j u r y t o t h e knee, w h i c h i s n o t a s c h e d u l e d member, i s t o be c o m p e n s a t e d as an i n j u r y to the l e g ) ; Action Agency, hand t o l e f t the 637 So. 2d 1360 arm p r o p e r l y outside Denmark l e g rather 522, Selma (injury extending from Cmty. left c o m p e n s a t e d as t h e l o s s o f u s e o f n o t argue Instead, that his injury he a r g u e s o n l y falls that the s h o u l d be c o m p e n s a t e d as a l o s s o f u s e o f than merely h i s f o o t . i n j u r y to the ankle leg. does of the schedule. i n j u r y t o h i s ankle the v. D a l l a s l e f t arm, a n d n o t t o t h e body as a w h o l e ) . Here, the and Simpson A permanent d i s a b l i n g h a s b e e n t r e a t e d as a s c h e d u l e d i n j u r y t o See L o g g i n s v. M a l l o r y 524-25 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) . Capacitor Co., 344 So. 2d However, t h e i s s u e i n t h a t c a s e was n o t w h e t h e r t h e i n j u r y t o L o g g i n s ' s a n k l e constituted a l o s s o f u s e o f h e r f o o t o r a l o s s o f u s e o f h e r l e g , as i s the i s s u e i n t h i s case. In Loggins, the t r i a l court had found t h a t L o g g i n s s u f f e r e d a 40% p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l l o s s o f t h e u s e 7 2101113 o f h e r l e f t l e g a n d a w a r d e d b e n e f i t s b a s e d on t h e p a r t i a l o f u s e o f a s c h e d u l e d member. I d . a t 524. On a p p e a l , asserted should that the t r i a l court loss Loggins have f o u n d t h a t she h a d r e c e i v e d a p e r m a n e n t i m p a i r m e n t o f t h e b o d y as a w h o l e . court affirmed t h e judgment, concluding that This the evidence supported the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t Loggins had s u s t a i n e d an i n j u r y t o a s c h e d u l e d member. On t h e o t h e r 243 on I d . a t 525. h a n d , i n N o l a n v. E r n e s t Construction A l a . 460, 462, 10 So. 2d 547, 549 ( 1 9 4 2 ) , t h e c a s e by the t r i a l determining court, that o u r supreme c o u r t upheld Co., relied a judgment an e m p l o y e e who h a d s u f f e r e d a f r a c t u r e i n his lower l e g and a n k l e use o f h i s f o o t a n d n o t h i s l e g b e c a u s e , as t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n that case found, there s h o u l d be c o m p e n s a t e d f o r t h e l o s s o f was no e v i d e n c e indicating i n j u r y a f f e c t e d t h e e m p l o y e e ' s l e g above t h e knee. we n o t e that that an § 25-5-57(a)(3)a.15, amputation considered between as t h e e q u i v a l e n t A l a . Code t h e knee and that the Moreover, 1975, ankle provides shall be o f the l o s s o f a f o o t and n o t the loss of a l e g . I n t h i s c a s e , two s c r e w s r e m a i n i n Denmark's l e f t Denmark testified that he still 8 has p a i n , ankle. stiffness, and 2101113 swelling i n h i s l e f t ankle. When he s t a n d s f o r p e r i o d s o f an h o u r o r two, Denmark s a i d , h i s a n k l e s w e l l s a n d h u r t s h i m . I f he squats, he s a i d , that a t times [his] leg." h i s ankle the pain stiffens. extends Denmark a l s o from h i s a n k l e T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t o s u g g e s t , "kind left ankle. I n a d d i t i o n , Denmark t e s t i f i e d h i s pain activities. Dr. S h a r p and that pain has not affected his B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , we the t r i a l t h a t Denmark s u s t a i n e d a p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l foot. t h a t he does n o t or take p r e s c r i p t i o n p a i n medicine that s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports left that t h a t Denmark c o m p l a i n e d t o h i m o n l y o f p a i n i n h i s use a n y s p e c i a l t r e a t m e n t s for o f up however, t h e p a i n e x t e n d s t o h i s knee o r h i g h e r up h i s l e g . testified said Accordingly, court's usual conclude finding l o s s o f use o f h i s t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . Denmark also contends that he was entitled to receive d o u b l e c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r h i s i n j u r y b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t i m e o f h i s i n j u r y he was i m p r o p e r l y minors are precluded The W o r k e r s ' from p e r f o r m i n g a t the employed i n a j o b t h a t under Alabama law. C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t , § 25-5-1 e t s e q . , Code 1975, e x p l i c i t l y p r o v i d e s Ala. t h a t i t a p p l i e s t o "employees 9 2101113 who or are minors and who have b e e n e m p l o y e d i n a c c o r d a n c e with c o n t r a r y t o l a w s r e g u l a t i n g t h e employment o f m i n o r s . " 25-5-34, A l a . Code 1975. "[i]f at the time That of s t a t u t e goes on t o s a y injury the minor was § that, employed in v i o l a t i o n o f o r c o n t r a r y t o t h e l a w r e g u l a t i n g t h e employment or any p a r t t h e r e o f , t h e n t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n what i t would be i f the employment s h a l l be two had been times legal." Id. A l a b a m a ' s c h i l d - l a b o r l a w s p r o h i b i t any p e r s o n u n d e r 18 y e a r s of age f r o m b e i n g e m p l o y e d t o o p e r a t e any " p o w e r - d r i v e n forming, cutting, shearing machines," guillotine straightening, or shears." § "any drawing, circular saws, 25-8-43(a)(12) and metal punching, band or saws, (16), A l a . or Code 1975. In [IMS] this case, required or to a appears be the trial allowed clear court [Denmark] violation However, b e c a u s e Denmark was found that to operate of § "[t]he a band not a c t u a l l y o p e r a t i n g the band a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t and b e c a u s e t h e b a n d saw not the that there Denmark's was of h i s i n j u r i e s , "no injuries nexus and the saw 25-8-43(a)(16)." saw source fact or the causal activity 10 trial court determined connection" prohibited was by between § 25-8- 2101113 43(a)(16). Accordingly, the trial Denmark not to double was entitled court concluded compensation that for his injury. I n d e n y i n g Denmark d o u b l e c o m p e n s a t i o n , r e l i e d on W i l l i s v. W.C. (1958). Storey, 268 A l a . 205, 105 So. 2d 128 accident, but he was working a p p r e n t i c e s h i p agreement w i t h a l o c a l u n i o n . 105 Willis court I n t h a t c a s e , W i l l i s was a m i n o r a t t h e t i m e o f h i s work-related 207, the t r i a l So. 2d a t 129. The and the regulations. employer When compensation from opinion had Willis was h i s employer f a i l e d t o p r o c u r e a n d h a v e on f i l e required by T i t l e on out that with injured, he both a l l federal sought double that i t had the ground t h e employment 26, § 352, A l a . Code an I d . , 268 A l a . a t pointed complied under 1940. certificate Our supreme c o u r t a f f i r m e d the d e n i a l of double compensation i n t h a t case. It d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e was no l e g i s l a t i v e intent to the p e n a l t y o f double compensation t o "the v i o l a t i o n procedural permitted statutes" or suffered and that, the minor "unless t o work b a n n e d b y o u r C h i l d L a b o r A c t , no r i g h t compensation." the of purely employer a t an has employment arises foradditional I d ^ , 268 A l a . a t 209, 105 So. 2d a t 132. 11 apply The 2101113 Willis court went on to hold that "[t]here must be some r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e a c t v i o l a t e d b y t h e e m p l o y e r and t h e i n j u r y s u f f e r e d by t h e minor employee." The c i r c u m s t a n c e s those in Willis in this Id. case are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from i n that there was no c o n t e n t i o n that was e n g a g e d i n a p r o h i b i t e d j o b when h i s a c c i d e n t In this case, however, the evidence Denmark's j o b a t IMS was t o o p e r a t e bar stock. At the time m a n e u v e r i n g a 1,300-pound of was Willis occurred. undisputed that t h e b a n d saw t o c u t m e t a l - the accident, Denmark was l e n g t h o f b a r s t o c k so t h a t t h e b a r s t o c k c o u l d be c u t w i t h t h e b a n d saw. I n o t h e r w o r d s , as p a r t o f h i s j o b o p e r a t i n g t h e b a n d saw, Denmark h a d t o p o s i t i o n t h e bar stock Although so i t could be f e d through Denmark was n o t c u t o r o t h e r w i s e saw b l a d e s , are that he was nonetheless p r o h i b i t e d from p e r f o r m i n g working at a job that minors when t h e a c c i d e n t of the c h i l d - l a b o r laws. case, do not reach occurred. between t h e t a s k a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t and violation we the i s s u e IMS's Under t h e f a c t s o f suggested e m p l o y e e h i r e d t o do a j o b i n v i o l a t i o n 12 saw. i n j u r e d by the band- Thus, t h e r e was a n e x u s o r c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n Denmark was p e r f o r m i n g the band by IMS that this an of c h i l d - l a b o r laws 2101113 b u t who i s n o t a c t u a l l y engaged i n a p r o h i b i t e d j o b a t t h e time injury of a work-related i s not e n t i t l e d t o double compensation. We c o n c l u d e t h a t , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t t h a t c a u s e d his injuries, 43(a)(16); Denmark was e m p l o y e d therefore, he was compensation f o r h i s i n j u r y . i n violation entitled o f § 25-8- to receive double Accordingly, that p o r t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g Denmark d o u b l e c o m p e n s a t i o n i s reversed, and t h i s cause i s remanded f o r t h e t r i a l 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 o p i n i o n . court to The r e m a i n d e r of t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED INSTRUCTIONS. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 13 WITH

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.