Office Max, Inc. v. Academy, Ltd. (Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court: CV-07-544) (Consolidated with 2110862.) Reversed And Remanded. Office Max, Inc. v. Sandra Richey (Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court: CV-07-544)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/17/2013 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110861 O f f i c e Max, Inc. v. Academy, L t d . 2110862 O f f i c e Max, Inc. v. Sandra Richey Appeals from Etowah C i r c u i t (CV-07-544) Court 2110861 and 2110862 PITTMAN, J u d g e . This i s the second i n v o l v i n g the l i a b i l i t y two injuries ("the claimed set of appeals o f O f f i c e Max, to reach this court Inc., with respect to t o have b e e n s u f f e r e d b y S a n d r a Richey e m p l o y e e " ) i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f h e r employment w i t h O f f i c e Max and as t o w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e e has sought b e n e f i t s u n d e r t h 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 A c t , A l a . Code § 25-5-1 et pertinent appeals Ltd., seq. ("the procedural taken 93 So. by history Office 3d 955 Act") . in Max, We summarized our Office ( A l a . C i v . App. opinion Max, Inc. much in v. of the the first Academy, 2012): "The e m p l o y e e f i l e d a c i v i l a c t i o n i n J u l y 2007, a l l e g i n g t h a t she had s u f f e r e d i n j u r i e s t o h e r k n e e s and to her shoulders in 2002 and in 2005, r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i l e i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f h e r employment w i t h O f f i c e Max; she s o u g h t an a w a r d under the Act of ' a l l compensation, disability, vocational, medical, rehabilitation and other b e n e f i t s ' t o w h i c h she was e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e f r o m O f f i c e Max. On t h r e e o c c a s i o n s , i n June 2008, M a r c h 2010, and J u l y 2010, the employee r e q u e s t e d the i s s u a n c e o f o r d e r s d i r e c t i n g O f f i c e Max t o p r o v i d e her w i t h m e d i c a l care from the t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n a u t h o r i z e d by O f f i c e Max, Dr. W i l l i a m H a r t z o g ; t h e trial court granted those requests over the o b j e c t i o n s o f O f f i c e Max. In arguments p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t a h e a r i n g on t h e e m p l o y e e ' s second request, d u r i n g which h e a r i n g the t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e d t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e e m p l o y e e and admitted v a r i o u s m e d i c a l documents i n t o e v i d e n c e , O f f i c e Max i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had l e f t h e r employment w i t h O f f i c e Max and had t a k e n a j o b w i t h Academy, Ltd. ('Academy'); O f f i c e Max contended t h a t t h a t s u b s e q u e n t employment had c a u s e d o r c o n t r i b u t e d t o 2 1975, 2110861 and 2110862 t h e e m p l o y e e ' s knee and s h o u l d e r c o n d i t i o n s such t h a t , u n d e r t h e ' l a s t - i n j u r i o u s - e x p o s u r e ' r u l e , see g e n e r a l l y U n i t e d S t a t e s F i d . & Guar. Co. v. S t e p p , 642 So. 2d 712, 715 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) , Academy s h o u l d be deemed r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o v i d i n g b e n e f i t s t o the employee under the A c t . In r e s p o n s e , c o u n s e l for the employee argued, and the trial court u l t i m a t e l y a g r e e d , t h a t Academy c o u l d p r o p e r l y be j o i n e d by O f f i c e Max as a t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t . " O f f i c e Max then f i l e d a motion, which was granted, t o i m p l e a d Academy as a p a r t y , and i t a s s e r t e d a t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m a g a i n s t Academy i n w h i c h i t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had s u f f e r e d a ' r e - i n j u r y ' o r an a g g r a v a t i o n o f a p r e v i o u s s h o u l d e r i n j u r y and t h a t Academy, r a t h e r t h a n O f f i c e Max, s h o u l d be h e l d l i a b l e u n d e r t h e A c t as t o b e n e f i t s owed t o t h e e m p l o y e e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n j u r i e s she had a l l e g e d i n h e r c o m p l a i n t . Academy moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n i t s f a v o r on O f f i c e Max's t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t any i n j u r i e s t h e e m p l o y e e m i g h t have s u s t a i n e d i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e of her employment with Academy were merely r e c u r r e n c e s of i n j u r i e s o r i g i n a l l y s u s t a i n e d i n the l i n e and s c o p e o f t h e e m p l o y e e ' s work f o r O f f i c e Max. O f f i c e Max f i l e d a r e s p o n s e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o Academy's summary-judgment m o t i o n , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d as to w h e t h e r t h e e m p l o y e e had s u f f e r e d f u r t h e r damage w h i l e e m p l o y e d by Academy. The e m p l o y e e , f o r h e r part, filed a f o u r t h motion seeking to compel medical treatment, averring that she had been d i a g n o s e d w i t h a l e s i o n i n h e r l e f t knee and t h a t O f f i c e Max s h o u l d be d i r e c t e d t o a u t h o r i z e s u r g e r y to c o r r e c t that c o n d i t i o n . In separate orders entered on F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, the trial court g r a n t e d b o t h Academy's summary-judgment m o t i o n and t h e e m p l o y e e ' s f o u r t h m o t i o n t o c o m p e l . O f f i c e Max f i l e d s e p a r a t e n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l as t o t h o s e o r d e r s , and t h o s e a p p e a l s were c o n s o l i d a t e d by t h i s c o u r t ex mero motu." 93 So. express 3d a t 956-57. Noting determination" t h a t "a t r i a l i n d i c a t i n g "that 3 c o u r t must make an there is no just 2110861 a n d 2110862 reason f o r delay final judgment 'adjudicates a n d must make an e x p r e s s be entered fewer than of fewer than appealable judgment," 93 appeals as So. 54(b), A l a . R. C i v . P. final ruling been taken a nonfinal orders pursuant of a the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l bar, previously of the o f w h i c h O f f i c e Max h a s c o m p l a i n e d , we now t u r n t o t h e substantive questions Did the t r i a l favor to Rule Because t h a t d i r e c t i o n o f e n t r y n o t e d by t h i s c o u r t , t o a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f t h e m e r i t s orders the court d i r e c t e d the entry of a as t o i t s p r e v i o u s judgment e l i m i n a t e s and final, dismissed from a that or the r i g h t s 3d a t 957, we judgment, a f t e r which t h e t r i a l judgment for a a l l t h e p a r t i e s ' t o be a having final order a l l the claims liabilities previous in d i r e c t i o n that of court properly enter Academy, necessarily presented. Ltd.? implicates the a summary j u d g m e n t i n Consideration question of whether that issue substantial e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t o s u p p o r t O f f i c e Max's p o s i t i o n t h a t Academy, n o t O f f i c e Max, s h o u l d for the health complained. standard be deemed l i a b l e , conditions of which i n whole o r i n p a r t , the employee has We n o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g summary o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e of review: " A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de novo. A m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i s t o be g r a n t e d when no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l fact 4 2110861 and 2110862 exists and t h e m o v i n g p a r t y is entitled to a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . A p a r t y moving f o r a summary j u d g m e n t must make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g ' t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t [ i t ] i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a matter of law.' I f t h e movant meets t h i s b u r d e n , 'the b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o r e b u t t h e movant's p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g by " s u b s t a n t i a l evidence."' ' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s evidence of s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can reasonably infer the e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t s o u g h t t o be proved.'" Kohler Co. 2005) (citations question absence as of employee's w h i c h we v. v. Miller, So. omitted). to which any 921 2d In Academy has genuine factual 436, this case, sought issue 444 (Ala. Civ. the substantive to demonstrate i s the App. date of the the l a s t i n j u r i o u s exposure, the l e g a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of summarized i n United States F i d e l i t y & Guaranty Stepp: "Under t h e 'last i n j u r i o u s exposure' rule, ' l i a b i l i t y f a l l s upon t h e c a r r i e r c o v e r i n g [ t h e ] r i s k a t t h e t i m e o f t h e most r e c e n t i n j u r y b e a r i n g a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n to the d i s a b i l i t y . ' The trial c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e s e c o n d i n j u r y i s 'a new i n j u r y , an a g g r a v a t i o n o f a p r i o r i n j u r y , o r a recurrence o f an o l d i n j u r y ; t h i s determination r e s o l v e s the i s s u e of which i n s u r e r i s l i a b l e . ' "A c o u r t f i n d s a r e c u r r e n c e when 'the s e c o n d [ i n j u r y ] does n o t c o n t r i b u t e even s l i g h t l y t o t h e c a u s a t i o n of the [ d i s a b i l i t y ] . ' ' [ T ] h i s group a l s o i n c l u d e s t h e k i n d o f c a s e i n w h i c h a w o r k e r has s u f f e r e d a b a c k s t r a i n , f o l l o w e d by a p e r i o d o f work with continuing symptoms indicating that the o r i g i n a l c o n d i t i o n p e r s i s t s , and c u l m i n a t i n g i n a s e c o n d p e r i o d o f d i s a b i l i t y p r e c i p i t a t e d by some 5 Co. 2110861 and 2110862 l i f t o r e x e r t i o n . ' A c o u r t f i n d s an ' a g g r a v a t i o n o f an i n j u r y ' when t h e ' s e c o n d [injury] contributed independently to the f i n a l disability.' I f the s e c o n d i n j u r y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a r e c u r r e n c e o f the first injury, then the first insurer is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the m e d i c a l b i l l s ; however, i f the i n j u r y i s c o n s i d e r e d an a g g r a v a t i o n o f t h e first i n j u r y , t h e n i t i s c o n s i d e r e d a new i n j u r y and t h e employer a t the time of the a g g r a v a t i n g i n j u r y i s liable for the medical bills and disability payments." 642 So. 2d at 712, 715 (Ala. Civ. App. its summary-judgment 1994) (citations omitted). In support adduced evidence begun working e m p l o y e e had k n e e s i n May submissions response of motion, Academy t e n d i n g t o show t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had for Academy in suffered injuries June to her 2007, well t o Academy's r e q u e s t s after the shoulders, chest, 2002 and t o h e r s h o u l d e r s i n O c t o b e r a l s o showed t h a t t h e first e m p l o y e e had f o r admissions 2005; those admitted, in propounded to h e r , t h a t she had b e e n i n j u r e d t w i c e w h i l e a c t i n g i n t h e and s c o p e o f h e r employment w i t h O f f i c e Max, n o t c h a n g e d d u r i n g h e r employment w i t h Academy, and the 2002 performed and 2005 incidents f o r Academy) had knees as t o w h i c h f r o m O f f i c e Max i n her she (rather caused had than injuries any work to her she 6 that had shoulders sought b e n e f i t s under the complaint. line t h a t h e r symptoms had and and Act 2110861 and In 2110862 i t s evidentiary summary-judgment the following motion submissions in response to f i l e d by Academy, O f f i c e Max pertinent evidence. to demonstrated t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e h a d c o m p l a i n e d i n A p r i l 2006 o f physician, Dr. pain, prompting William Hartzog, injury, employee's of shoulder shoulder the adduced allegations bilateral a work-related As the Office her a u t h o r i z e d to diagnose her Max treating as having t e n d i n i t i s o r b u r s i t i s i n b o t h s h o u l d e r s ; h o w e v e r , Dr. H a r t z o g subsequently January the r e v i s e d h i s d i a g n o s i s and p e r f o r m e d 2007 t o r e p a i r a f u l l - t h i c k n e s s employee's right shoulder. Dr. surgery i n rotator-cuff tear i n Hartzog referred employee f o r a p a r t i a l - i m p a i r m e n t e v a l u a t i o n i n October after she h a d begun e m p l o y e e was working f o r Academy, a t w h i c h the 2007, time the a s s e s s e d as h a v i n g an e i g h t p e r c e n t impairment r a t i n g as t o h e r r i g h t s h o u l d e r and a f i v e p e r c e n t impairment r a t i n g as t o h e r e n t i r e In November 2008, body. over a year working f o r Academy, t h e e m p l o y e e office, complaining of shoulder while working having r e t u r n e d t o Dr. "increasing a t h e r new after symptoms" job hanging started Hartzog's i n her clothes. right Dr. H a r t z o g o p i n e d t h a t he w o u l d n e e d t o r u l e o u t a r e - t e a r o f t h e rotator cuff, and ("MRI") p r o c e d u r e he ordered a magnetic-resonance-imaging as t o t h e a f f e c t e d a r e a . 7 Dr. H a r t z o g , i n a 2110861 and 2110862 December 4, 2008, c l i n i c n o t e , s t a t e d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s images r e v e a l e d in the area a f u l l thickness of the previous MRI rotator-cuff tear " b a s i c a l l y tear" and recommended another s u r g i c a l - r e p a i r procedure (which took p l a c e i n F e b r u a r y 2009); after that capacities having a shoulder procedure, the evaluation nine employee underwent at which the percent a functional- e m p l o y e e was impairment rating as assessed to her as right and a f i v e p e r c e n t i m p a i r m e n t r a t i n g as t o h e r e n t i r e body. A t h i s d e p o s i t i o n , Dr. H a r t z o g , a f t e r t e s t i f y i n g t h a t employee's job duties at Academy p r o b a b i l i t y of e x a g g e r a t i n g right shoulder," reasonable employee's was degree work for her could medical Academy [had] the preexisting condition in a s k e d w h e t h e r he of "have the and had an opinion, probability, her job whether duties indeed "aggravated her p r e e x i s t i n g r i g h t shoulder there her to a the had condition." Dr. H a r t z o g r e p l i e d i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e , s t a t i n g t h a t " i t w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be not an aggravation." compel a c o n c l u s i o n Although t h a t statement would t h a t the e m p l o y e e ' s work f o r Academy had i n d e e d " c o n t r i b u t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y t o t h e f i n a l disability" f o r purposes of the l a s t - i n j u r i o u s - e x p o s u r e r u l e s e t f o r t h i n S t e p p , see S t e i n M a r t , I n c . v. D e l a s h a w , 64 So. 06 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), that 8 testimony, 3d 1101, coupled with 1105¬ the 2110861 and 2110862 i n c r e m e n t a l i n c r e a s e i n t h e e m p l o y e e ' s d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g as t o her r i g h t shoulder f o l l o w i n g her second r o t a t o r - c u f f i n 2009, amounts t o s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e the trier of f a c t , would support employee d i d not s u f f e r surgery t h a t , i f b e l i e v e d by a determination that the a mere " r e c u r r e n c e " o f h e r p r e v i o u s r o t a t o r - c u f f i n j u r y while working f o r Academy. Accord Water Works Bd. o f B i r m i n g h a m v. Isom, 56 So. 3d 659, 669 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) after 2003 (holding that evidence accident proposition that very causing resulted least, tear, 2006 o f an e m p l o y e e ' s h e a l i n g labral accident tear involving tended to support employee, "at the i n a r e t e a r i n g of the previous i . e . , an a g g r a v a t i o n of the previous labral t e a r " (emphasis added)). As t o t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c l a i m e d knee i n j u r i e s , o p i n e d i n December Dr. Hartzog 2006 t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e h a d 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 as t o h e r knee c o n d i t i o n s and t h a t she h a d no permanent undertaken impairment thereto. Further, MRI procedures as t o t h e e m p l o y e e s ' knees d u r i n g h e r employment w i t h O f f i c e Max showed no s i g n i f i c a n t a b n o r m a l i t i e s . in September 2010, the employee returned to Dr. c o m p l a i n i n g o f knee p a i n , a t w h i c h t i m e Dr. H a r t z o g that an MRI procedure s h o u l d be o b t a i n e d . as to the employee's I n O c t o b e r 2010, a f t e r 9 However, Hartzog indicated left t h e images knee from 2110861 and 2110862 t h e MRI p r o c e d u r e had b e e n o b t a i n e d , Dr. H a r t z o g saw of a m e d i a l m e n i s c a l t e a r " i n the employee's l e f t which arthroscopic response. on job a motion indicated as the proper t o compel m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t , t e s t i f i e d that her during duties the 2010 had [her] knee two employee structure had of years April t o make i t more amounts t o s u b s t a n t i a l suffered [her] preceding condition foregoing evidence the was knee as t o F u r t h e r , t h e e m p l o y e e , when q u e s t i o n e d a t a h e a r i n g "aggravated The surgery "evidence "new body," damage tending evidence to to painful." the show that physical either a g g r a v a t i o n o f a p r e v i o u s w o r k p l a c e i n j u r y t o , o r a new an injury t o , h e r knee d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f h e r employment w i t h Academy. Hokes B l u f f W e l d i n g ( A l a . C i v . App. We from persuasive Academy's Academy's that our conclusions demonstrating than that at adduced summary-judgment favor. by trial motion However, under the d e t e r m i n a t i o n s on Max warrants we do 3d 592, not 604 to a in judgment conclude Office the e x i s t e n c e of a genuine 10 more i n response subsequent rule, foreclose evidence of a u t h o r i t i e s b e h a l f of last-injurious-exposure adequately demonstrated do that Office n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g Academy's c i t a t i o n favorable 33 So. 2008). emphasize Academy & F a b r i c a t i o n v. Cox, that, involving employers Max issue has of 2110861 and 2110862 f a c t r e g a r d i n g Academy's p o t e n t i a l t h i r d - p a r t y l i a b i l i t y . We do so n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g Academy's p u b l i c - p o l i c y argument t o t h i s court against authority, reversal, one largely unsupported by legal t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t a r u l i n g i n O f f i c e Max's favor m i g h t have a c h i l l i n g e f f e c t upon i n d u s t r i a l h i r i n g o f w o r k e r s who have a p r e e x i s t i n g m e d i c a l workplace injury. To the c o n d i t i o n stemming from a p r i o r contrary, we perceive potential s a l u t a r y e f f e c t s t h a t might f l o w from a d e s i r e t o b e t t e r match i n j u r e d w o r k e r s r e e n t e r i n g t h e j o b m a r k e t t o a p p r o p r i a t e work that w i l l Based n o t g r e a t l y and the foregoing facts and reinjury. authorities, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Academy i s due to upon unnecessarily risk their be r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e remanded f o r f u r t h e r as to Office similarly order the implicates compelling n o t e d i n our or the claim. correctness of to provide forward. There Our the trial medical i s no conclusion court's treatment dispute as opinion Academy "will i n the previous appeals, u l t i m a t e l y be treatment" held f o r the employee. the proposition that 11 the as to the we either Office responsible for 93 So. 957 3d a t However, g i v e n t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e supports to of the employee's i n j u r i e s i n t h i s case: further medical n.2. third-party O f f i c e Max employee g o i n g compensability Max Max's proceedings employee record suffered 2110861 a n d 2110862 a g g r a v a t i o n s o f p r e v i o u s i n j u r i e s o r new i n j u r i e s i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f h e r employment w i t h Academy, w h i c h e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t a j u d g m e n t o r d e r i n g Academy t o be s o l e l y would liablefor t h e e m p l o y e e ' s b e n e f i t s u n d e r t h e A c t , s e e H e a l t h - T e x , I n c . v. Humphrey, 747 So. 2d 9 0 1 , 905 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , we must conclude that the t r i a l Rule 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., c o m p e l l i n g O f f i c e m e d i c a l expenses is c o u r t ' s o r d e r , made f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o f o r t h e employee, i s premature, r e v e r s e d i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e O f f i c e Max f u l l Max t o p a y and i t , t o o , r e l i e f from t h e e r r a n t summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Academy. 2110 8 61 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2110 8 62 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. Donaldson, J . , concurs. Thomas, J . , concurs specially. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 12 writing. writing. 2110861 and 2110862 THOMAS, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. L i k e P r e s i d i n g Judge Thompson, I have c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g the a b i l i t y o f an i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e t o o b t a i n m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t w h i l e two e m p l o y e r s l i t i g a t e t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e e m p l o y e e ' s injury i s a recurrence work-related injury. Thompson, i n s o f a r this o f o r an Thus, I aggravation agree as he e x p r e s s e s with o f an Presiding earlier Judge i n his special writing i n c a s e t h e n e e d f o r a r u l e o f l a w t o g o v e r n an e m p l o y e e ' s access t o medical treatment i n such s i t u a t i o n s . 13 2110861 and 2110862 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I concur reverses in the the result i n the insofar as summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r result. the main opinion o f Academy, L t d . a l s o c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t i n s o f a r as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n the order medical e.g., 2d compelling benefits to Office Inc., Richey Sandra Max, ("the A l p i n e Assoc. Indus. Servs., 391 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) to I reverses provide future employee"). See, I n c . v. S m i t h e r m a n , 897 ( r e v e r s a l of a p a r t i a l So. summary j u d g m e n t where g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d as whether the represented the employee's back p a i n a recurrence employee's new employer b e n e f i t s , or i n j u r y o r an a g g r a v a t i o n was benefits). not responsible instead represented o f an o l d i n j u r y , t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c u r r e n t e m p l o y e r was medical injury of h i s p r e v i o u s i n j u r y , i n which case current providing medical f o l l o w i n g h i s work to for either a i n which case responsible for providing I w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y to note t h a t the case b e f o r e us h i g h l i g h t s t h e p r o b l e m t h a t a r i s e s when an e m p l o y e e has difficulty two e m p l o y e r s l i t i g a t e who medical o b t a i n i n g much-needed m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s f o r one needs t o be o r more c o m p e n s a b l e i n j u r i e s . a r u l e of law, injuries while i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e payment o f There p r e f e r a b l y a s t a t u t o r y one, e n a b l e s an e m p l o y e e s i t u a t e d l i k e t h e one the treatment a r e c o m p e n s a b l e and 14 there i n t h i s case, i s a question that where only as 2110861 and to which 2110862 employer necessary medical the two is liable for payment o f t h e m e d i c a l that injurious-exposure benefits, Max, (Ala. Civ. obtain i s ultimately responsible for In t h i s i n s t a n c e , O f f i c e Max benefits. its rule" core contention i s that under the Inc. v. App. 2012). Academy, L t d . , Using ombudsman p r o g r a m as a g u i d e , "last- " e i t h e r i t o r Academy u l t i m a t e l y be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r f u r t h e r m e d i c a l Office to t r e a t m e n t as e x p e d i t i o u s l y as p o s s i b l e w h i l e e m p l o y e r s l i t i g a t e who acknowledged the 93 the So. 3d treatment." 955, procedures see A l a . Code 1975, will 957 n.2 under the § 25-5-292, 1 I e n c o u r a g e our l e g i s l a t u r e t o amend t h e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n Act, § 1 and to a t r i a l c o u r t , i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g d i s p u t e s where two grant 25-5-1 e t or Section seq., Ala. Code 25-5-292 p r o v i d e s , 1975 ("the Act"), in part: "(d) I f t h e r e i s a d i s p u t e as t o w h i c h o f two o r more i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r s i s l i a b l e f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r one o r more c o m p e n s a b l e i n j u r i e s , t h e ombudsman may i s s u e an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r d i r e c t i n g e a c h i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r t o pay a p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e o f b e n e f i t s due p e n d i n g a f i n a l d e c i s i o n on l i a b i l i t y . The proportionate s h a r e s h a l l be determined by d i v i d i n g t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n due by t h e number o f insurance c a r r i e r s involved. "(e) On f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i a b i l i t y , any i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r t h a t has b e e n d e t e r m i n e d n o t t o be l i a b l e f o r t h e payment o f b e n e f i t s i s e n t i t l e d t o r e i m b u r s e m e n t f r o m t h e s h a r e p a i d by t h e insurance c a r r i e r t h a t has b e e n d e t e r m i n e d t o be l i a b l e . " 15 2110861 and 2110862 more e m p l o y e r s a r e p o t e n t i a l l y l i a b l e f o r b e n e f i t s f o r one o r more compensable employer to pay injuries, a the authority proportionate m e d i c a l expenses pending a f i n a l or, especially to pay rule," the a reimbursement believe, nonliable from of liability of the pending "lastformer a final Then, on a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f employer liable with employee's employee's expenses each the would be employer. I beneficent entitled simply do to not and benevolent p u r p o s e s o f t h e A c t , t h a t an e m p l o y e e ' s c l a i m f o r , and r e c e i p t of, consistent the the order the application order medical d e t e r m i n a t i o n of l i a b i l i t y . liability, to of determination i n cases i n v o l v i n g injurious-exposure employer share to n e c e s s a r y m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t s h o u l d be s i d e l i n e d w h i l e employers stage a lengthy fight payment. 16 o v e r who two i s responsible for

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.