Stericycle, Inc. v. Sonja Patterson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/12/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2111032 S t e r i c y c l e , Inc. v. Sonja P a t t e r s o n Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-901265) PITTMAN, J u d g e . Stericycle, that Sonja I n c . ,appeals Patterson partial disability suffers from from a judgment a 57 p e r c e n t determining permanent and awarding h e r b e n e f i t s , pursuant t o the 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 , § 2 5 - 5 - 1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 2111032 1975 ("the Act"). Stericycle medical-causation supported by and argues t h a t the disability trial determinations substantial Procedural Stericycle i s engaged i n the management, c o l l e c t i o n , a disposal Stericycle loaded and business removal. waste from d e s i g n a t e d site. On truck three approximately the loaded she felt one witnessed not Background of medical-waste P a t t e r s o n was as a r o u t e t r u c k d r i v e r ; h e r d u t i e s were t o c o l l e c t of m e d i c a l are evidence. F a c t u a l and court's to January Shelby containers 50 19, 2011, Patterson Baptist Hospital of medical in waste, and a ramp t o t h e experienced the a c c i d e n t . containers t r a n s p o r t them t o drove a Alabaster; each p o u n d s , o n t o a h a n d t r u c k ; and h a n d t r u c k up a "pop" s i t e s and employed weighing was pushing S t e r i c y c l e t r u c k when p a i n i n her lower I t i s undisputed back. that No Patterson r e t u r n e d t o t h e S t e r i c y c l e o f f i c e and r e p o r t e d t h e a c c i d e n t t o her s u p e r v i s o r the The Mueller same f o l l o w i n g day, at St. day. P a t t e r s o n was Vincent's e x a m i n e d by D r . Occupational Health Michael Center. Dr. M u e l l e r d i a g n o s e d P a t t e r s o n as s u f f e r i n g f r o m a l u m b a r s t r a i n , prescribed pain medication, r e t u r n e d h e r t o work u n d e r 2 light- 2111032 d u t y r e s t r i c t i o n s , and s c h e d u l e d 26, 2011. and Stericycle assigned reported still Estrada, symptoms accommodated P a t t e r s o n ' s administrative t o Dr. M u e l l e r having therapy her a follow-up v i s i t pain, sessions duties. at the follow-up Dr. Mueller f o r her. At visit first the p h y s i c a l t h e r a p i s t , reported were inconsistent Patterson t h a t she was three physical- session, that "positive Steven Patterson's for symptom Following the t h i r d session, Estrada magnification." and restrictions When scheduled the f o r January reported t h a t P a t t e r s o n h a d "had no s i g n i f i c a n t s u b j e c t i v e o r o b j e c t i v e change s i n c e t h e f i r s t for symptom visit. Still magnification." another follow-up visit a p p e a r s t o be p o s i t i v e Patterson saw D r . M u e l l e r f o r on F e b r u a r y 10, 2011. Dr. M u e l l e r ' s o f f i c e n o t e s f o r t h a t day s t a t e : "22 d a y s p o s t i n j u r y ; maximum therapy and meds; magnification." positive Dr. M u e l l e r r e t u r n t o work w i t h o u t At Patterson's alternative physiatrist. behavior indicated that and symptom Patterson could l i m i t a t i o n on F e b r u a r y 14, 2011. request, treating pain Stericycle provided physician, Dr. Turnley f o l l o w i n g her examination Dr. Michelle her with an Turnley, a d i c t a t e d the f o l l o w i n g o f f i c e of Patterson 3 note on M a r c h 1, 2 0 1 1 : 2111032 "She describes some i n t e r m i t t e n t , nonpersistent r i g h t and l e f t l e g weakness i n t h e n o n - r a d i c u l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n [ t h a t ] comes on b o t h a f t e r p r o l o n g e d s i t t i n g a n d p r o l o n g e d s t a n d i n g . ... She ... d o e s move slow[ly] and possibly some symptom m a g n i f i c a t i o n . ... She h a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i m i n i s h e d l u m b a r r a n g e o f m o t i o n b u t she s e l f - l i m i t s She has a n e g a t i v e s t r a i g h t - l e g r a i s e . She does have s e v e r e p a i n w i t h FABER's [ f l e x i o n , a b d u c t i o n , a n d external rotation] b i l a t e r a l l y . She g e t s t e a r y eyed. ... [ A lumbar-spine X-ray] reveals no f r a c t u r e s , no a c u t e a b n o r m a l i t i e s a n d f a i r l y good disc-space i n t e g r i t y . " Dr. Turnley diagnosed resolve lumbar muscle-relaxant 25, strain from a s l o w - t o - and p r e s c r i b e d a n t i - i n f l a m m a t o r y and medications. 2011, P a t t e r s o n helped P a t t e r s o n as s u f f e r i n g At a follow-up v i s i t reported h e r . Dr. Turnley that the medications on M a r c h had not changed P a t t e r s o n ' s m e d i c a t i o n to a n a r c o t i c p a i n r e l i e v e r a n d o r d e r e d a m a g n e t i c r e s o n a n c e image ("MRI") o f P a t t e r s o n ' s disk disease. 29, 2011. lumbar s p i n e t o check f o r u n d e r l y i n g D r . Morgan E i l a n d p e r f o r m e d t h e MRI on M a r c h His report states: "FINDINGS: A t L 2 - 3 , t h e d i s c i s i n t a c t . There a r e d e g e n e r a t i v e f a c e t c h a n g e s . T h e r e i s no s p i n a l o r foraminal stenosis. A t L3-4, there i s disc d e s s i c a t i o n w i t h a broad-based d i s c bulge and a midline annular t e a r . F a c e t and ligamentum f l a v u m hypertrophy are present. There i s b i l a t e r a l r e c e s s s t e n o s i s b u t no s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a m i n a l s t e n o s i s . A t L4-5, t h e r e i s d i s c d e s s i c a t i o n w i t h a broad-based d i s c bulge and a m i d l i n e a n n u l a r t e a r . Facet hypertrophy i s present. This causes bilateral 4 2111032 recess l a t e r a l recess stenosis without foraminal s t e n o s i s . At L5-S1, the d i s c i s rudimentary. It is intact. T h e r e i s no s p i n a l o r f o r a m i n a l s t e n o s i s e l s e w h e r e . No t h e c a l s a c o r n e r v e r o o t c o m p r e s s i o n i s p r e s e n t e l s e w h e r e . Bone marrow s i g n a l i s n o r m a l . "IMPRESSION: D e g e n e r a t i v e c h a n g e s as described. T h e s e a r e most s i g n i f i c a n t a t L3-4 and L4-5 where there i s l a t e r a l recess s t e n o s i s . There are annular tears at both l e v e l s . " On April medical 4, 2011, Dr. Turnley placed i m p r o v e m e n t ("MMI"), r e l e a s e d h e r w i t h no r e s t r i c t i o n s , and c o n c l u d e d percent had P a t t e r s o n c o u l d r e t u r n t o work as a t r u c k driver, to be cleared bend f o r w a r d , by t o Dr. Mueller Turnley no examination was had that there Dr. Jones saw Department On A p r i l 7, M u e l l e r how "no to 5 Patterson f a r she could Dr. evidence an on" Martin Jones, P a t t e r s o n on A p r i l 21, recommended 2011, conducted. "some d i s c b u l g i n g was of " c o u l d not s i g n o f f ever referred Patterson that Patterson herniation," a examination. h e r t h a t he o r t h o p e d i c s p i n e s u r g e o n , who but f o r the showed Dr. he i n f o r m e d the e x a m i n a t i o n ; tear," passing ("DOT") p h y s i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n . t e s t i f i e d t h a t when she Noting t o r e t u r n t o work "[zero] reported Dr. maximum t h a t P a t t e r s o n had Transportation she at p h y s i c a l impairment." Before she Patterson and of epidural an an 2011. annular large block disc and 2111032 p h y s i c a l therapy and concluded work t h a t day w i t h o u t that Patterson could return to limitations. On May r e t u r n e d t o Dr. J o n e s , c o m p l a i n i n g numbness office i n both legs. Dr. 26, 2011, Patterson o f b a c k p a i n and Jones recorded the pain and following note: " [ P a t t e r s o n ] s a y s she i s b a r e l y a b l e t o g e t a r o u n d . She i s u s i n g a cane t o d a y . ... She i s n o t w o r k i n g a t all. Her p h y s i c a l therapy suggested moderate a t y p i c a l pain behavior. "IMPRESSION AND P L A N : A t t h i s p o i n t she seems j u s t a b o u t i n c a p a c i t a t e d and i t i s h a r d t o u n d e r s t a n d why b a s e d on h e r x - r a y s and h e r MRI s c a n . B u t i n any e v e n t , my r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i s t o g e t a C T / m y e l o g r a m and an EMG/nerve c o n d u c t i o n s t u d y o f h e r l e g s t o see i f a n y t h i n g e l s e shows up a t t h a t p o i n t and t h e n go from t h e r e . " Dr. R u t h Snow, who p e r f o r m e d t h e CT/myelogram, reported t h a t t h e t e s t showed " m i l d d e g e n e r a t i v e d i s c and facet changes recesses are in the narrowed at L3-4; lumbar spine; lateral there i s mild l e f t l a t e r a l recess joint mildly narrowing a t L 4 - 5 ; [ a n d ] L5 i s a t r a n s i t i o n a l e l e m e n t , as i s T12." Gordon Kirschberg, study, stated: without evidence entrapment being who "This of performed is a normal neuropathy, seen. the T h e r e was 6 Dr. EMG/nerve-conduction electrodiagnostic radiculopathy, poor v o l u n t a r y or study specific recruitment 2111032 of a l l muscle groups [ i n ] both l e g s , which i s a f u n c t i o n a l or non-organic s i g n . " Patterson returned t o Dr. J o n e s on J u n e 23, J o n e s ' s o f f i c e n o t e f o r t h a t day 2011. Dr. states: " [ P a t t e r s o n ] s a y s she i s no b e t t e r . She i s s t i l l b o u n d t o t h e c a n e . Her m y e l o g r a m i s u n r e m a r k a b l e other than j u s t m i l d degenerative changes. Her EMG/nerve c o n d u c t i o n s t u d y i s n o r m a l . "I do not have any explanation for her s y m p t o m a t o l o g y and s u s p e c t t h a t t h e r e a r e s e c o n d a r y issues. She i s a t MMI, z e r o i m p a i r m e n t r a t i n g t o t h e b o d y as a w h o l e , and can r e t u r n t o f u l l d u t y . " S t e r i c y c l e p a i d f o r Patterson's medical treatment no temporary-disability benefits. Patterson f i l e d a complaint total Eric trial, Aside l i v e witnesses Fields, Stericycle. for, the Patterson, 12, 2011, s e e k i n g b e n e f i t s f o r a permanent testified district who was at t r i a l Patterson t r a n s p o r t a t i o n manager 44 years o l d at s t a t e d t h a t she had n e v e r e x p e r i e n c e d , the from the d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y records the f i n d i n g s and p e r t a i n i n g to his 7 o f Dr. 2011. M a r t i n Jones of of or been t r e a t e d conclusions treatment for time back p a i n before her workplace a c c i d e n t i n January merely r e i t e r a t e d the April disability. O n l y two and On but p a i d her (who contained in Patterson), no 2111032 physician or other Patterson's medical health-care provider r e c o r d s were a d m i t t e d parties. Counsel f o r the following stipulations by a g r e e m e n t o f p a r t i e s signed "to be used testified. at and the submitted trial of the the this matter": " 1 . On J a n u a r y 19, 2011, t h e r e e x i s t e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f an e m p l o y e r and employee. "2. On s a i d d a t e , t h e p a r t i e s were s u b j e c t t h e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n Laws o f A l a b a m a . to "3. On s a i d d a t e , [ P a t t e r s o n ] a l l e g e d t o r e c e i v e an i n j u r y t o h e r b a c k t h a t a r o s e o u t o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f h e r employment w i t h [ S t e r i c y c l e ] . Proper n o t i c e o f s a i d a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t and i n j u r y were given. " "7. The o n l y i s s u e t o be d e c i d e d by t h e c o u r t i n t h i s m a t t e r i s t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , i f any, owed t o [ P a t t e r s o n ] . " (Emphasis added.) The trial "Evidence Before Parties," court's judgment, the Court in a section entitled S t i p u l a t i o n s o f E v i d e n c e by states, in pertinent part: "The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e t o t h e C o u r t t h a t a t t h e time of the occurrence made the basis of [ P a t t e r s o n ' s ] c l a i m , [ P a t t e r s o n ] was an e m p l o y e e o f [ S t e r i c y c l e ] as t h e t e r m 'employee' i s d e f i n e d a t A l a . Code § 2 5 - 5 - 1 ( 5 ) ( 1 9 7 5 ) . The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e 8 the 2111032 t h a t [ S t e r i c y c l e ] i s a c o v e r e d e m p l o y e r as t h e t e r m ' e m p l o y e r ' i s d e f i n e d a t A l a . Code § 2 5 - 5 - 1 ( 4 ) (1975) and was n o t e x c l u d e d b y t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Ala. Code § 2 5 - 5 - 5 0 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . "The p a r t i e s f u r t h e r s t i p u l a t e t h a t t h e d a t e o f t h e i n j u r y made t h e b a s i s o f [ P a t t e r s o n ' s ] c l a i m was on J a n u a r y 19, 2011, a n d t h a t t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y was t h e r e s u l t o f an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t o f a n d i n t h e course of [ Patterson's] employment with [ S t e r i c y c l e ] . The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e t h a t [ P a t t e r s o n ] gave p r o p e r a n d t i m e l y n o t i c e o f h e r c l a i m t o [ S t e r i c y c l e ] as r e q u i r e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f A l a . Code § 25-5-78 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . " (Emphasis motion added.) S t e r i c y c l e d i d not f i l e challenging the trial court's p a r t i e s had s t i p u l a t e d t h a t P a t t e r s o n ' s out a postjudgment statement that the a l l e g e d i n j u r y arose o f a n d i n t h e c o u r s e o f h e r employment. Standard o f Review Our review pertinent i s governed part: by "In reviewing the A c t , which the standard states, of proof ... a n d 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 C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s be without a presumption of correctness." § 25-5-81(e)(1). So. 2d 262, 268 fact, if (Ala. 1996). A l a . Code 1975, court pure f i n d i n g s of s h a l l n o t be reversed f i n d i n g i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . " 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(2). 9 shall T r i n i t y I n d u s . , I n c . , 680 "In reviewing the f i n d i n g of the c i r c u i t that Code See a l s o Ex p a r t e in Substantial Ala. evidence is 2111032 " ' e v i d e n c e o f such 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 judgment can r e a s o n a b l y e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' " Indus680 So. 2d a t 269 (quoting West i n f e r the Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y v. F o u n d e r s Life A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , a n d citing § 1 2 - 2 1 - 1 2 ( d ) , A l a . Code 1975). Discussion Medical C i t i n g Ex p a r t e 1116 S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , 873 So. 2d ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d Ex p a r t e 1989), Stericycle substantial states, and contends evidence however, Patterson's of Causation of that Price, that Patterson medical the 555 So. 2d 1060 failed causation. parties had (Ala. to present The judgment stipulated that i n j u r y was " t h e r e s u l t o f an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t i n the [Stericycle]." course Therefore, of p r o v i n g m e d i c a l So. 2d 455, 461-62 of [Patterson's] employment with P a t t e r s o n d i d n o t have t h e b u r d e n causation. See Werner Co. v. D a v i d s o n , 986 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . " ' F o r an a c c i d e n t t o " a r i s e o u t o f employment" t h e employment must have b e e n t h e c a u s e a n d s o u r c e o f t h e a c c i d e n t a n d t h e r e s u l t a n t i n j u r i e s must be t r a c e a b l e t o a p r o x i m a t e cause s e t i n motion by t h e employment, n o t b y some o t h e r a g e n c y . F o s t e r v. C o n t i n e n t a l G i n Co., 261 A l a . 366, 74 So. 2d 474 10 2111032 [ ( 1 9 5 4 ) ] . And an i n j u r y t o an e m p l o y e e " a r i s e s i n [ t h e ] c o u r s e o f employment" w i t h i n t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n a c t when i t o c c u r s w i t h i n the period of his employment, a t a p l a c e where he may r e a s o n a b l y be, and w h i l e he i s r e a s o n a b l y f u l f i l l i n g d u t i e s o f h i s employment o r e n g a g e d i n d o i n g s o m e t h i n g i n c i d e n t t o i t . S o u t h e r n C o t t o n O i l Co. v. B r u c e , 249 A l a . 675, 32 So. 2d 666 [ ( 1 9 4 7 ) ] . ' " Ex parte Trinity Indus., 680 So. 2d at added; q u o t i n g Alabama T e x t i l e Prods. Ala. 179, 183, 82 So. 2d 204, 207 265 n.2 (emphasis C o r p . v. G r a n t h a m , 2 63 (1955)). See generally 1 T e r r y A. 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 § 10:2 a t 314-15 (1998). "'A proof, for s t i p u l a t i o n i s a j u d i c i a l admission, recognized legal Res., and proof.'" 88 So. 3d K.D. 893, Spradley v. State, 1982)). The trial stipulated that course her proving of decided of permanent 896 by the court's 2d Civ. 170, dispensed causation, as 2012) Human (quoting (Ala. that arose Crim. App. the parties had out with the Dep't o f App. 172 conclusion injury with c o u r t s as a s u b s t i t u t e J e f f e r s o n Cnty. (Ala. So. employment in their by t h e 414 v. Patterson's medical recognized enforced dispensing of the and in necessity parties disability benefits, 11 i f any, of implicitly s t i p u l a t i o n that "[t]he only issue to c o u r t i n t h i s matter i s the nature the and be extent owed to 2111032 [Patterson]." A stipulation between opposing counsel relevant point as narrow [the] so to range of quoting Black's Law obviate litigable Civ. 495 Res., See on So. So. to 88 So. their 1077, certain appeal.'" E v a n s v. (rev. So. some 88 or (Ala. 5th ed. 2d 634, agreements w i l l K.D. 3d a t 897 47, Co., A[la]. 1080 facts v. be 370 1985) 1979), 636 (Fla. R. A[pp]. (Ala. 1986). is 2d 1030 P." from Cnty. (Ala. Cotton Dep't has of Human 172). Spradley, 414 So. 2d a t a l s o Vann E x p r e s s , I n c . v. Phillips, 539 So. 2d The dissent determination v. repudiating (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. of Reese " ' [ O ] n e who foreclosed Jefferson binding. So. to Alabama a g r e e t o t r y t h e i r c a s e upon a t h e o r y Rule 2d of for proof 2d 86, 1269 Kennedy E l e c t r i c 1979); stipulated them and Home v. App. Terry, need issues.'" I n c . , 474 agreement disposition i n t u r n A r r i n g t o n v. S t a t e , 233 choosing Funeral "'voluntary [the] Dictionary 1 9 7 0 ) ) . " P a r t i e s may their a concerning P r o f ' l Health Consultants, (quoting is 296, 298 with our 1988). finds fault, on two grounds, t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' s t i p u l a t i o n subsumed t h e of m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n . First, the contends t h a t this c a s e i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o W i l s o n v. B e r r y I n d u s t r i e s Co., 12 dissent issue 2111032 451 So. 2d 339 the trial ( A l a . C i v . App. court was not 1984), a d e c i s i o n h o l d i n g precluded by p a r t i e s ' s t i p u l a t i o n from d e t e r m i n i n g had the the language (a) t h a t t h e had failed to prove causation. of the stipulation n o t o b v i a t e d t h e n e e d t o e s t a b l i s h c a u s a t i o n and employee that (b) that Second, the d i s s e n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , when r e a d a whole, i n d i c a t e s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not i n t e r p r e t the p a r t i e s ' s t i p u l a t i o n t o subsume t h e i s s u e o f m e d i c a l because, finding the of dissent fact with address those Berry, says, contentions supra, is ... court to medical 2d its We own will o n l y i s s u e t o be at case i n t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y m e n t i o n i n g the t r i e d to the of permanent d i s a b i l i t y [ , ] So. made causation. i s s i m i l a r to the p r e s e n t t h a t "'the the i s s u e trial causation in turn. p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d , without of c a u s a t i o n , the respect as total.'" 451 340. explicitly determined t h a t the In Berry, e m p l o y e e had c a u s a t i o n and d e n i e d b e n e f i t s , t h e r e b y be issue Court i t partial the trial the or court not established implicitly determining t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' s t i p u l a t i o n had n o t e n c o m p a s s e d t h e i s s u e o f causation. This court affirmed following: 13 the judgment, stating the 2111032 "The t e r m s o f t h e s t i p u l a t i o n i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case d i d not r e q u i r e t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t award compensation to the employee. There was no admission of l i a b i l i t y . In view of the language of t h e s t i p u l a t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d h o l d as i t d i d and s t i l l be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t i p u l a t i o n . " 451 So. the conclusion extant 2d a t 341 in in Berry, i s s u e of medical present the Patterson's and trial states case; court's that i n j u r y "was in the [Stericycle]," decided extent of course thereby by the Berry the of the had support remained the opposite judgment present case stipulated that that employment the s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t the in this disability matter benefits, need not court's trial be 14 out with court "only issue nature i f any, owed causation decided by to and to had the judgment i s c o n s i s t e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of court's trial i s the i s s u e of medical t h e p a r t i e s and then the in [Patterson's] i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i f the trial stipulation, parties indicating court permanent b e e n r e s o l v e d by with causation supports judgment the [ P a t t e r s o n ] " t o mean t h a t t h e court. i t does n o t t h e r e s u l t o f an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g i n t e r p r e t e d the p a r t i e s ' be Berry T h a t i s so b e c a u s e , i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e specifically of t h a t the the conclusion. (emphasis added). the parties' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s to be 2111032 upheld. the t r i a l In the present court's With respect the case, t h e judgment i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h interpretation. t o the d i s s e n t ' s second c o n t e n t i o n that j u d g m e n t , when r e a d as a w h o l e , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t i n t e r p r e t t h e p a r t i e s ' s t i p u l a t i o n t o encompass the issue of medical causation because t h e t r i a l its own f i n d i n g o f f a c t w i t h r e s p e c t t o m e d i c a l c o u r t made causation we a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t , u n d e r t h e a n o m a l o u s h e a d i n g " F i n d i n g s o f Law" i n i t s judgment, reference the t r i a l court made the following to causation: "The MRI a n d m y e l o g r a m c o n d u c t e d b y t h e a u t h o r i z e d t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n s n o t e d t h a t [ P a t t e r s o n ] h a s an a n n u l a r b u l g e i n h e r d i s c s l o c a t e d a t t h e L3-4 a n d L4-5 levels o f t h e lumbar spine. The MRI s p e c i f i c a l l y showed a b r o a d b a s e d d i s c b u l g e a n d m i d l i n e a n n u l a r t e a r a t b o t h t h e L3-4 a n d L 4 - 5 l e v e l s o f t h e lumbar s p i n e . "The c o u r t f i n d s t h e s e r e s u l t s t o be s u b s t a n t i a l nds e v i d e n c e o f t h e t y p e a n d n a t u r e o f an i n j u r y t h a t was c a u s e d b y t h e t y p e o f a c c i d e n t d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s case. The m e d i c a l records indicate that these physical findings are consistent with the h i s t o r y contained i n the records of [Patterson's] having s u f f e r e d an o n - t h e - j o b i n j u r y . " (Emphasis added.) statement The d i s s e n t m a i n t a i n s constitutes a finding t h a t the emphasized of fact that Patterson's J a n u a r y 19, 2 0 1 1 , work e x e r t i o n c a u s e d two b u l g i n g d i s k s a n d 15 2111032 two annular t e a r s i n her lumbar s p i n e . We t h i n k the of the emphasized statement i s f a r l e s s c e r t a i n . to us t h a t the constituted, trial causation MRI Patterson That described to as observation superfluous to " t y p e " o f l u m b a r - s p i n e a b n o r m a l i t i e s shown on P a t t e r s o n ' s attributed a reference the be most, oblique I t appears that could at court's meaning the having hardly "type" 2011, tears actually i n her Compensation § 24:52 judgment " s h o u l d responsive trial to court Further, evidence medical her the in spine. at on 591 bulging See J a n u a r y 19, a d i s k s and presented the trial court's this case, including diagnoses, work e x e r t i o n on January that a finding to and lengthy trial annular court's by fact the omitted)). recitation of of the Patterson's continuing pain 19, 2011, 16 January of every and as t o m e d i c a l 2011. Workers' litigated evidence s i g n a l the t r i a l c o u r t ' s understanding make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n two 2 Moore, A l a b a m a (stating that straightforward, ( e m p h a s i s added; f o o t n o t e treatment, exertion work e x e r t i o n on include a conclusive issues work constitutes c a u s e d two lumbar of occurred conclusive finding that Patterson's 19, observation following d i d not necessarily t h a t i t was required to causation, as t h e dissent 2111032 contends. court's The same e v i d e n c e was a l s o ultimate d i s a b i l i t y Finally, the dissent relevant to the t r i a l determination. maintains that the conduct of the p a r t i e s i n d i c a t e s that they d i d not intend t h e i r to resolve the issue of medical causation. stipulation I f that i s true, then i t i s s u r p r i s i n g , t o say the l e a s t , that n e i t h e r party c a l l e d an e x p e r t w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y a t t r i a l a n d t h a t t h e s o l e expert who question that testified touching Stericycle by d e p o s i t i o n was n o t a s k e d on m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n . (a) Patterson had neglected argued to challenge medical the t r i a l court's p a r t i e s had s t i p u l a t e d t h a t P a t t e r s o n ' s out o f and i n t h e c o u r s e of phrase employment." "arising out of causation and that (b) statement that the [ h e r ] employment" and brief a l l e g e d i n j u r y "arose r e f l e c t S t e r i c y c l e ' s f a i l u r e to appreciate the single Moreover, the f a c t s in i t s posttrial not e s t a b l i s h e d a in apparently the l e g a l import of the course of ... That p h r a s e has had a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d meaning i n Alabama j u r i s p r u d e n c e f o r almost a century, see G a r r e t t v. Gadsden C o o p e r a g e Co., 209 A l a . 223, 224-25, 96 So. 188, 190 (1923), and c o u n s e l should be p r e s u m e d 17 t o know i t slegal 2111032 s i g n i f i c a n c e or to bear the not t o be We rewarded f o r f a i l i n g conclude that i n t e r p r e t the p a r t i e s ' to be decided extent of by issue the permanent [Patterson]" the consequences of t h e i r of the to r a i s e the trial court stipulation court fact, construed issue. was authorized that "[t]he only i n t h i s matter i s the disability benefits, t o mean t h a t i t was medical oversight, That i f any, the issue nature trial and owed unnecessary to causation. to to determine court, the s t i p u l a t i o n t o o b v i a t e the need t o in decide m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n i s apparent from the t r i a l c o u r t ' s statement t h a t the p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t P a t t e r s o n ' s result [her] any of an accident employment w i t h conclusive causation arising of [Stericycle]" finding i n the t r i a l out of fact court's and and with i n j u r y was i n the from the respect "the course of absence of to medical judgment. Disability With respect to d i s a b i l i t y , the t r i a l court determined: "The medical records ... indicate that the various health care providers suspect that [ P a t t e r s o n ] , upon c l i n i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n , d e m o n s t r a t e d a c e r t a i n d e g r e e o f symptom m a g n i f i c a t i o n . T h a t i s , t h e o u t w a r d m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f p a i n d i s p l a y e d by [ P a t t e r s o n ] were more, i n t h e h e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r s ' o p i n i o n , t h a n one w o u l d e x p e c t g i v e n t h e o b j e c t i v e f i n d i n g s and i m p r e s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g from the MRI, 18 2111032 m y e l o g r a m , and nerve conduction tests conducted r e g a r d i n g [Patterson's] lower back i n j u r y . "The c o u r t i n J i m W a l t e r R e s o u r c e s , I n c . v. B u d n i c k , 619 So. 2d 926 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) , has w r i t t e n the f o l l o w i n g w i t h r e g a r d to the c o u r t ' s consideration [of a] plaintiff's subjective c o m p l a i n t s o f p h y s i c a l p a i n and i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f medical opinions: "'An i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e ' s own subjective complaints of p a i n are l e g a l evidence which may s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f d i s a b i l i t y . See, e.g., B a n k h e a d F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s , [ I n c . v. L o v e t t , 423 So. 2d 899 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 8 2 ) ] ; H e s t e r v. R i d i n g s , 388 So. 2d 1218 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) . ' " "While the c o u r t notes t h a t [Patterson's] h e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r s were p e r p l e x e d by t h e d e g r e e o f subjective pain complaints manifested by [ P a t t e r s o n ] , none o f t h e s a i d h e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r s testified that [Patterson] should not have e x p e r i e n c e d any p a i n as a r e s u l t o f h e r a c c i d e n t . "The c o u r t notes t h a t i n the medical record cited herein from Dr. Michelle Turnley ... [Patterson] i n d i c a t e d t h a t she was experiencing ' s e v e r e p a i n ' and g o t ' t e a r y e y e d ' as she a t t e m p t e d t o p e r f o r m F l e x i o n , A b d u c t i o n , and E x t e r n a l R o t a t i o n exercises. The court a l s o takes into account [Patterson's] presentation in court while testifying. [Patterson] walked w i t h a decided limp as she a m b u l a t e d f r o m c o u n s e l t a b l e t o t h e w i t n e s s stand. She c l i m b e d t h e s t e p t o t h e w i t n e s s stand with great care and sat slowly. [Patterson] a m b u l a t e d as t h o u g h she was much o l d e r t h a n h e r 44 years. The court, therefore, finds that [ P a t t e r s o n ' s ] s u b j e c t i v e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of p a i n are c r e d i b l e and a r e a f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d e g r e e 19 2111032 of permanent [Patterson]. disability suffered in this case by "The c o u r t i n C a r q u e s t A u t o P a r t s & T o o l s o f Montgomery, A l a b a m a , I n c . v. W a i t e , 892 So. 2d 422 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , d i s c u s s e d o t h e r f a c t o r s w h i c h t h e C o u r t may c o n s i d e r i n r e n d e r i n g i t s d e c r e e as follows: " ' " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t has t h e d u t y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t o f d i s a b i l i t y and i s n o t b o u n d by expert testimony i n making t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n ; yet, i n making i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , the t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r a l l the evidence, 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 , and i t must i n t e r p r e t the evidence t o i t s own best judgment. S p e c i f i c a l l y , a t r i a l c o u r t i s not bound t o a c c e p t a p h y s i c i a n ' s a s s i g n e d i m p a i r m e n t r a t i n g and i s f r e e t o make i t s own determination as t o an employee's i m p a i r m e n t . " Compass Bank v. G l i d e w e l l , 685 So. 2d 739, 741 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) (citation omitted). II I I "In the case b e f o r e the C o u r t , [ P a t t e r s o n ] i s a p e r s o n o f l i m i t e d work e x p e r i e n c e . She has w o r k e d as a c a s h i e r and as a t r u c k d r i v e r . B o t h j o b s r e q u i r e e i t h e r s t a n d i n g or s i t t i n g f o r long p e r i o d s of time which, [Patterson] t e s t i f i e d , causes her back p a i n to i n c r e a s e . However, t h e C o u r t a l s o n o t e s that [ P a t t e r s o n ] d i d n o t t e s t i f y t h a t she was u n a b l e t o work, o n l y t h a t she was n o t p h y s i c a l l y a b l e t o p a s s her DOT requirements i n order to resume her o c c u p a t i o n as a t r u c k d r i v e r . " [ P a t t e r s o n ] continues to perform her household c h o r e s . [ P a t t e r s o n ] c o o k s , and she t e n d s t o a young g r a n d c h i l d . [ P a t t e r s o n ] , t h o u g h she does n o t have h e r [ c o m m e r c i a l d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e ] , c o n t i n u e s and i s 20 2111032 a b l e t o d r i v e h e r c a r a n d h a s some t r a i n i n g cosmetologist. as a " A p p l y i n g t h [ e ] s t a n d a r d [ f o r permament t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y ] , t h e c o u r t does n o t f i n d [ P a t t e r s o n ] t o be p e r m a n e n t l y t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d . R a t h e r , t h e c o u r t h e r e b y f i n d s [ P a t t e r s o n ] t o s u f f e r an u n s c h e d u l e d p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l i m p a i r m e n t as d e f i n e d a t A l a . Code § 25-5-57(a)(3) (g). "The court also finds that [Patterson's] percentage of vocational disability i s hereby d e t e r m i n e d t o be 57% a n d i s p a y a b l e i n a r r e a r s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f maximum m e d i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t as d e t e r m i n e d b y D r . M a r t i n J o n e s on June 23, 2 0 1 1 . " Citing that Southern the trial E n e r g y Homes, s u p r a , court's disability supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. Stericycle determination argues i s not S t e r i c y c l e maintains that, i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r P a t t e r s o n was p e r m a n e n t l y d i s a b l e d , t h e trial court outward focused manifestations discounting without physician complaints medical solely who of pain during testimony and h e r the t r i a l , thereby e x p l a n a t i o n , i t says, evidence that had t r e a t e d of pain on P a t t e r s o n ' s were Patterson had r e p o r t e d inconsistent f i n d i n g s , had assigned with every that her the objective h e r an i m p a i r m e n t rating of " z e r o , " a n d h a d n o t e d t h a t she h a d d i s p l a y e d e i t h e r " p o s i t i v e pain behavior," self-limiting magnification." 21 effort, or "symptom 2111032 In hurt S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, t h e her back i n A p r i l also claimed 1996 when she t o have r e p o r t e d been t o l d by the injured contained employer t h a t on no the job. mention of fell the a c c i d e n t F i v e d a y s l a t e r , h o w e v e r , when she was employee c l a i m e d The the not to her a doctor, medical ladder left e m p l o y e e had her filed was had records accident or after a w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m and had employment. An o r t h o p e d i c with she she r e s u l t i n g b a c k p a i n u n t i l more t h a n e i g h t months l a t e r , the she supervisor. aware t h a t employee's alleged have o f f a ladder; a s k e d t o see i t was to surgeon s u b s e q u e n t l y d i a g n o s e d the employee degenerative disk disease. He noted that, although i t p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s b a c k p a i n c o u l d have r e s u l t e d from the ladder accident, the employee's c o m p l a i n t s of were i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the revealed changes. therapist findings. degenerative also A noted symptoms neurologist c o n d u c t i o n s t u d y was physical stated f i n d i n g s i n an The employee's inconsistent that the normal, concluded t h a t the rating. 22 that physical physical employee's e n g a g e d i n symptom m a g n i f i c a t i o n , and a s s i g n e d permanent-impairment with MRI pain nerve- employee had t h e e m p l o y e e no 2111032 The trial disability court and awarded t h e employee b e n e f i t s , and t h i s granted reversed, lack court court affirmed. the employer's p e t i t i o n h o l d i n g , among o t h e r of evidence indicating permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y . " that permanent-totalOur supreme for certiorari review t h i n g s , t h a t t h e r e was "a [the employee] s u s t a i n e d a 873 So. 2d a t 1123. The court stated: "'Permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y i s t h e i n a b i l i t y t o p e r f o r m one's t r a d e and t h e i n a b i l i t y t o f i n d o t h e r g a i n f u l employment.' Jim Walter R e s . , I n c . v. B u d n i c k , 619 So. 2d 926, 927 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( c i t i n g § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) d . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . None o f [ t h e e m p l o y e e ' s ] d o c t o r s p l a c e d r e s t r i c t i o n s on h e r work s t a t u s a f t e r May 1998. T h r e e o f t h e p h y s i c i a n s as w e l l as t h e p h y s i c a l t h e r a p i s t who t r e a t e d [ t h e e m p l o y e e ] s t a t e d t h a t [ h e r ] symptoms and c o m p l a i n t s were n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e m e d i c a l t e s t i n g and h e r b e h a v i o r a t v a r i o u s t i m e s . M o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , none o f the d o c t o r s , p s y c h o l o g i s t s , or e x p e r t s s t a t e d a f t e r e x a m i n i n g [ t h e e m p l o y e e ] t h a t [she] was i n c a p a b l e o f g a i n f u l employment." Id. Although Homes and there the distinguishable the trial are s i m i l a r i t i e s present case, from the p r e s e n t between Southern Southern Energy Energy Homes case because, i n t h i s court believed Patterson's testimony that is case, she h a d e x p e r i e n c e d u n r e l e n t i n g p a i n s i n c e J a n u a r y 19, 2011, e x p r e s s l y determining that Patterson's "subjective manifestations 23 of 2111032 pain [were] c r e d i b l e . " explain why i t f o u n d (Ala. Seating, c o u r t was the physicians' symptom-magnification Bostrom The t r i a l impairment determinations I n c . v. A d d e r h o l d , not required to ratings or unpersuasive. See 852 So. 2d 784, 793-94 C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . "'When e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s , i t i s the duty of the t r i a l court, which had the opportunity t o observe the witnesses and t h e i r demeanors, a n d n o t t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , t o make c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s and t o weigh t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d . B l a c k m a n v. G r a y R i d e r T r u c k L i n e s , I n c . , 716 So. 2d 698, 700 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . The r o l e of t h e a p p e l l a t e court i s not t o reweigh the e v i d e n c e b u t t o a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l court i f i t s f i n d i n g s are reasonably supported by t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e c o r r e c t l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s have b e e n drawn t h e r e f r o m . Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y Indus.[, I n c . ] , 680 So. 2 d [262] a t 268-69 [ ( A l a . 1996)]; F r y f o g l e v. S p r i n g h i l l Mem'l Hosp., I n c . , 742 So. 2d 1255 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , a f f ' d , 742 So. 2d 1258 (Ala. 1 9 9 9 ) . The " a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must v i e w t h e f a c t s i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e P r o f e s s i o n a l B u s . Owners A s s ' n W o r k e r s ' Comp. Fund, 867 So. 2 d 1099, 1102 (Ala. 2003).'" Ex p a r t e C a l d w e l l , 104 So. 3d 901, p a r t e H a y e s , 70 So. 3d 1211, standard trial of review, court's 904 ( A l a . 2012) ( q u o t i n g Ex 1215 ( A l a . 2011) ). we c a n n o t reweigh f i n d i n g s are supported B a s e d on t h a t the evidence by s u f f i c i e n t i f the evidence. I n Compass Bank v. G l i d e w e l l , 685 So. 2d 739 ( A l a . App. 1996), t h i s c o u r t stated: 24 Civ. 2111032 " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t has t h e d u t y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t o f d i s a b i l i t y and i s not bound by e x p e r t testimony i n making that d e t e r m i n a t i o n ; y e t , i n making i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , the trial court must consider a l l the evidence, including i t s own observations, and i t must i n t e r p r e t t h e e v i d e n c e t o i t s own b e s t j u d g m e n t . Specifically, a t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t bound t o a c c e p t a p h y s i c i a n ' s a s s i g n e d i m p a i r m e n t r a t i n g and i s f r e e t o make i t s own d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o an e m p l o y e e ' s impairment." 685 So. 2d a t 741 (citations omitted). to totality consider employee's the subjective determination." So. 87 Dingman, The in the complaints disability 3d 74, of G.A. ( A l a . C i v . App. 65 So. 3d 909, 925 evidence, of pain, court i s free i n c l u d i n g the i n making i t s West & Co. v. J o h n s t o n , 2012) (citing ( A l a . C i v . App. f a c t o r s that the t r i a l i t s judgment "A t r i a l C a s e c o , LLC the extent v. 2010)). court considered i n determining 92 of d i s a b i l i t y 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 recited Patterson's We conclude t h a t the t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n determining t h a t P a t t e r s o n has s u f f e r e d a 57% p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l disability. The j u d g m e n t o f t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . Thompson, P . J . , and D o n a l d s o n , J . , c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t , without w r i t i n g s . Moore, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h 25 writing. 2111032 MOORE, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I respectfully dissent. At the employer"), outset of through the trial, i t s attorney, that Sonja Patterson Stericycle, Inc. ("the s t i p u l a t e d i n open court ("the e m p l o y e e " ) " a l l e g e d t o r e c e i v e an i n j u r y t o h e r b a c k t h a t a r o s e o u t o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f h e r employment w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r ] " on J a n u a r y 19, 2011, and that " t h e o n l y i s s u e t o be d e c i d e d b y t h e [ J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t ] in this matter is the nature and extent d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , i f any, owed t o t h e I n W i l s o n v. B e r r y I n d u s t r i e s Co., of permanent [employee]." 451 So. 2d 339 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e o n l y i s s u e t o be d e c i d e d any involved "remaining issues" 451 So. 2d a t 340. declined the extent t o be o f permanent d i s a b i l i t y " s t i p u l a t e d and a g r e e d In i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l with upon." court i n Wilson t o a w a r d t h e e m p l o y e e any c o m p e n s a t i o n , concluding t h a t he h a d f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h i s i n j u r y had r e s u l t e d from h i s a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t . employee a p p e a l e d , a r g u i n g s t i p u l a t i o n of the p a r t i e s . The that the f i n d i n g c o n t r a d i c t e d the This court disagreed, stating: " I n Montgomery v. M a r d i s , 416 So. 2d 1042 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 2 ) , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d d e c i d e d t h a t 26 2111032 Mardis suffered pertinent part, follows: a temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y . i t was d e t e r m i n e d on a p p e a l In as "'We n o t e t h a t a t t r i a l t h e p a r t i e s , by s t i p u l a t i o n , a p p a r e n t l y a t t e m p t e d t o l i m i t the court's determination to the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r M a r d i s was p e r m a n e n t l y disabled. Mardis, i n h i s cross-appeal, argues t h i s p o i n t , a l l e g i n g t h a t the court could not l e g a l l y make a finding of t e m p o r a r y d i s a b i l i t y . We do n o t a g r e e . A l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s may e n t e r i n t o an a g r e e m e n t t o t r y t h e i r c a s e on a n y t h e o r y t h e y c h o o s e , Reese F u n e r a l Home v. Kennedy E l e c t r i c Co., 370 So. 2d 1030 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) , t h e c o u r t i s n o t b o u n d b y t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t as t o t h e l a w t o be a p p l i e d i n t h e case, o r by agreements o f f a c t w h i c h a r e c o n t r a r y t o t h e f a c t s as d i s c l o s e d b y t e s t i m o n y . G a r r e t t v. Mathews, 474 F. Supp. 594 (N.D. A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) , a f f ' d , 625 F.2d 658 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) . The e x t e n t and type of d i s a b i l i t y s u f f e r e d by a workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m a n t , a n d t h e amount o f c o m p e n s a t i o n t o be a w a r d e d i n a given s i t u a t i o n , are matters f o rthe court t o d e c i d e . I n t h i s c a s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t was f r e e t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t e m p o r a r y or p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t y , o r l a c k t h e r e o f . ' -I- ^-^ ^ T T ^ ^ ^ ^ T) ^ ^ ^ ^ TT"-, -, v-^ ^ .1 TT ^ i-v-. ^ -r -r ^ v-^ v-^ ^ ^ -r T "416 So. 2d a t 1042. H e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d a lack o f any d i s a b i l i t y which resulted to the employee f r o m t h e J a n u a r y 1981 a c c i d e n t . That d e c i s i o n was one o f t h e a u t h o r i z e d s o l u t i o n s as s t a t e d i n t h e Montgomery c a s e . " 451 So. 2d a t 3 4 1 . In the t h e p r e s e n t case, i t i s apparent from t h e w o r d i n g o f parties' stipulation, quoted 27 above, that the employer, 2111032 like the defendant i n Wilson, e m p l o y e e had a result s u s t a i n e d any of the essentially the 19, supra, same d i d not 2011, admit t h a t the or d i s a b i l i t y permanent i n j u r y January according to Wilson, supra, as accident. Therefore, i n which the p a r t i e s stipulation, the entered issue of into medical c a u s a t i o n , i . e . , t h e c a u s a l l i n k b e t w e e n t h e J a n u a r y 19, accident and extant. In i t s p o s t t r i a l 1 the injury the employer s p e c i f i c a l l y to prove that the and disability b r i e f submitted claimed, 2 remained to the t r i a l court, a r g u e d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had failed January 19, 2011, accident had c a u s e d any o f t h e symptoms t h a t she c l a i m e d p r e v e n t e d working, 2011, further notifying the trial court of medically her from i t s need to I do n o t a g r e e t h a t W i l s o n h o l d s t h a t a c i r c u i t c o u r t may i n t e r p r e t a s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t t h e o n l y i s s u e t o be d e c i d e d i s t h e e x t e n t o f p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t y as e i t h e r o b v i a t i n g o r p r e s e r v i n g t h e i s s u e o f m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n , d e p e n d i n g on i t s own i n c l i n a t i o n s , and t h a t t h i s c o u r t i s b o u n d by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n s u g g e s t s . So. 3d a t . W i l s o n h o l d s o n l y t h a t s u c h a s t i p u l a t i o n does n o t e l i m i n a t e t h e i s s u e o f m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n , so t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t must s t i l l d e c i d e t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f d i s a b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g f r o m an i n j u r y r e c e i v e d i n a w o r k - r e l a t e d a c c i d e n t . 1 In workers' compensation d i s a b i l i t y cases, medical c a u s a t i o n c o n s i s t s o f two s e p a r a t e i n q u i r i e s . First, the t r i a l c o u r t must d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e w o r k - r e l a t e d accident caused a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y to the worker. Second, the t r i a l c o u r t must a s s e s s t h e p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h a t injury. See 1 T e r r y A. 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 2 28 2111032 resolve that employee issue did not f i l e d w i t h the in its final dispute trial that judgment. contention Notably, i n any brief she court. In i t s f i n a l judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t p a r t i e s had the the stipulated that " t h e d a t e o f t h e i n j u r y made t h e b a s i s o f [the e m p l o y e e ' s ] c l a i m was on J a n u a r y 19, 2011, and t h a t t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y was t h e r e s u l t o f an accident a r i s i n g o u t o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f [ t h e e m p l o y e e ' s ] employment w i t h [ t h e e m p l o y e r ] . " A f a i r r e a d i n g o f t h e p a r t i e s ' s t i p u l a t i o n shows t h a t t h e y d i d not agree January that 19, "the 2011, alleged accident. injury They 3 was the merely r e s u l t of" agreed that the the § 7:3 a t p. 189-90 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . In t h i s case, the t r i a l court a d d r e s s e d b o t h a s p e c t s by f i n d i n g (a) t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had i n j u r e d two l u m b a r d i s k s as a r e s u l t o f h e r J a n u a r y 19, 2011, w o r k - r e l a t e d a c c i d e n t ; and (b) t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had s u f f e r e d p a i n and p h y s i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s due t o t h o s e i n j u r i e s . The employer maintains that the employee did not present s u f f i c i e n t evidence to support the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t the work-related accident had caused the injuries that r e s u l t e d i n t h e p a i n and l i m i t a t i o n s f o u n d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I n her complaint, t h e e m p l o y e e a l l e g e d t h a t she had " r e c e i v e d an i n j u r y t o h e r b a c k and o t h e r v a r i o u s p a r t s o f t h e body w h i c h c a u s i n g [ s i c ] t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y f o r a p e r i o d o f time and n e c e s s i t a t i n g [ s i c ] [ m e d i c a l ] t r e a t m e n t i n an e f f o r t t o cure the i n j u r i e s . These i n j u r i e s a l s o have c a u s e d a n x i e t y , d e p r e s s i o n , and m e n t a l o r e m o t i o n a l i n j u r y . " The p a r t i e s d i d n o t s t i p u l a t e as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e b a c k i n j u r y t h e e m p l o y e e r e c e i v e d , d i d n o t s t i p u l a t e t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had i n j u r e d o t h e r p a r t s o f h e r b o d y , and d i d n o t s t i p u l a t e t h a t t h e 3 29 2111032 employee based her claim on an i n j u r y o c c u r r i n g on t h a t d a t e . t h a t p a r t of the alleged work-related Read i n i s o l a t i o n , j u d g m e n t a p p e a r s t o be back therefore, erroneous. However, " [ j ] u d g m e n t s a r e t o be c o n s t r u e d like other w r i t t e n instruments. The r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f j u d g m e n t s a r e those applicable to the construction and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c o n t r a c t s . Hanson v. H e a r n , 521 So. 2d 953 ( A l a . 1988). Separate p r o v i s i o n s of j u d g m e n t s , l i k e p r o v i s i o n s o f c o n t r a c t s , s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d i n p a r i m a t e r i a , and t h e e n t i r e j u d g m e n t a l l p r o v i s i o n s c o n s i d e r e d s h o u l d be r e a d as a w h o l e i n t h e l i g h t o f a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , as w e l l as o f t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e p a r t i e s . I d . " Moore v. Thus, Graham, 590 in statements construing in its s t i p u l a t i o n s , we in So. l i g h t of the 2d the 293, 295 meaning judgment must c o n s i d e r of the 1991). trial regarding the circumstances, ( A l a . C i v . App. the court's parties' remainder of i t s judgment as w e l l as the conduct of the parties. Following the paragraphs regarding the p a r t i e s , which are c o n t a i n e d court's judgment, the trial the s t i p u l a t i o n s of on p a g e s 1 and court, in the 2 of the next 6 trial pages, e m p l o y e e ' s p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s had c a u s e d t h e m e n t a l i n j u r i e s a l l e g e d i n the c o m p l a i n t . At t r i a l , the employee based her c l a i m e x c l u s i v e l y on an a l l e g e d b a c k i n j u r y . 30 2111032 recites the evidence back c o n d i t i o n and regarding the nature of the the medical diagnoses o b t a i n e d f o l l o w i n g h e r J a n u a r y 19, 2011, court then conclusions makes of the following and treatments accident. findings employee's of The fact law: "The C o u r t h e r e b y f i n d s t h a t [the employee] s u f f e r e d an a c u t e i n j u r y t o h e r b a c k ... i n an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t o f and i n t h e c o u r s e o f h e r p e r f o r m a n c e o f h e r employment. As s u c h , A l a . Code § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( c ) (1975) p r o v i d e s t h a t [ t h e e m p l o y e e ] i s entitle[d] to benefits upon e s t a b l i s h i n g b y a preponderance of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, p r o o f of her c l a i m . ... "Under t h e s t i p u l a t i o n s o f f a c t by w h i c h t h i s c l a i m has b e e n s u b m i t t e d t o t h e C o u r t , t h e i s s u e t o be d e c i d e d i s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e e v i d e n c e w a r r a n t s a f i n d i n g o f p e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y , some d e g r e e o f p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y , o r no p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t y at a l l . "[The e m p l o y e r ] has a r g u e d t h a t i n l i g h t o f t h e opinions rendered by the authorized treating physicians that [the employee] s u f f e r s from no d e g r e e o f p h y s i c a l i m p a i r m e n t b a s e d on o b j e c t i v e d i a g n o s t i c t e s t i n g and t h e r a p e u t i c t r e a t m e n t t h a t a f i n d i n g o f no e n t i t l e m e n t t o b e n e f i t s i s w a r r a n t e d i n t h i s case. "[The e m p l o y e e ] , on t h e o t h e r h a n d a r g u e s t h a t h e r s u b j e c t i v e c o m p l a i n t s o f p a i n , c a u s e d by an i n j u r y t o her lower back, w a r r a n t s a f i n d i n g of permanent d i s a b i l i t y . 31 she trial and 2111032 "The e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e C o u r t i s o f a 44 y e a r o l d f e m a l e w i t h no p r i o r h i s t o r y o f h e a l t h p r o b l e m s o r b a c k a i l m e n t s who s u f f e r e d a b a c k i n j u r y w h i l e p u s h i n g a h e a v y l o a d on an i n c l i n e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f p e r f o r m i n g t h e d u t i e s o f h e r employment w i t h [ t h e e m p l o y e r ] . The MRI and m y e l o g r a m c o n d u c t e d by t h e authorized treating physicians noted that [the e m p l o y e e ] has an a n n u l a r b u l g e i n h e r d i s c s l o c a t e d a t t h e L3-4 and L4-5 l e v e l s o f t h e l u m b a r s p i n e . The MRI s p e c i f i c a l l y showed a b r o a d b a s e d d i s c b u l g e and midline annular t e a r a t b o t h t h e L3-4 and L4-5 l e v e l s of the lumbar s p i n e . "The C o u r t f i n d s t h e s e r e s u l t s t o be s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f t h e t y p e and n a t u r e o f an i n j u r y t h a t was c a u s e d by t h e t y p e o f a c c i d e n t d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s case. The medical records indicate that these p h y s i c a l f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the h i s t o r y c o n t a i n e d i n the r e c o r d s of [the employee] h a v i n g s u f f e r e d an on t h e j o b i n j u r y . " (Emphasis trial added.) In those findings and c o u r t e x p r e s s l y d e t e r m i n e s t h a t the employee an a c u t e i n j u r y t o h e r b a c k r e s u l t i n g i n two two conclusions, lumbar d i s k b u l g e s . 4 The trial annular the sustained tears court then concludes and that The m a i n o p i n i o n a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s " o b l i q u e reference to causation hardly constitutes a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , c o n c l u s i v e f i n d i n g t h a t [ t h e e m p l o y e e ' s ] work e x e r t i o n on J a n u a r y 19, 2011, a c t u a l l y c a u s e d two bulging d i s k s and two a n n u l a r t e a r s i n h e r l u m b a r s p i n e . " So. 3d at . The r e f e r e n c e t o m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n i s n o t " o b l i q u e . " The t r i a l c o u r t f i n d s , u n e q u i v o c a l l y , t h a t t h e a c t o f p u s h i n g t h e l o a d up t h e i n c l i n e c a u s e d t h e e m p l o y e e ' s a n n u l a r t e a r s and d i s k b u l g e s . No o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the j u d g m e n t can be i n d u l g e d . 4 32 2111032 the employee s u s t a i n e d a p a i n f u l c o n d i t i o n from those t h a t r e s u l t e d i n a permanent p a r t i a l The main opinion injuries disability. describes the foregoing findings r e l a t i v e t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by t h e e m p l o y e e to be n o t h i n g more t h a n "a s u p e r f l u o u s 3d a t 10 . pages I disagree. of the The observation." So. voluminous f i n d i n g s w r i t t e n over judgment indicate that the trial court u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' s t i p u l a t i o n d i d n o t encompass agreement as to the nature of the r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e J a n u a r y 19, 2011, injury and accident. disability Those d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s , c o n s t i t u t i n g the v a s t m a j o r i t y of the t r i a l determination, parties' i n d i c a t e t h a t the t r i a l stipulation in such a r e q u i r e d to determine the type the January disabling 19, 1995) . c o u r t i n t e r p r e t e d the manner that i t was still of back i n j u r y r e s u l t i n g accident, c o n t r a c t s , the as well as its from lasting in pari materia terms of a judgment " s h o u l d and g i v e s e f f e c t t o a l l terms used." Southern court's effects. Like with construed 2011, any Elec. Generating When c o n s t r u i n g Co., a construction that S u l l i v a n , Long & H a g e r t y v. 667 So. a document, t h i s 33 adopted be 2d 722, 725 (Ala. c o u r t must presume 2111032 "'"that e v e r y word, s e n t e n c e , o r p r o v i s i o n was i n t e n d e d f o r some u s e f u l p u r p o s e , h a s some f o r c e a n d e f f e c t , a n d t h a t some effect i s t o be g i v e n t o e a c h , a n d a l s o t h a t no words o r p r o v i s i o n s were u s e d . " ' " 779 So. 2d 227, 236 ( A l a . 2000) Ex p a r t e U n i r o y a l T i r e Co., (quoting S h e f f i e l d v. S t a t e , 708 So. 2d 899, 900 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ) . that the s t i p u l a t i o n causation, obviated entirely concluding the issue of medical violate the t r i a l court's f i n d i n g s as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n j u r y t h e e m p l o y e e received and t h e r e s u l t i n g p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t y f r o m t h a t i n j u r y totally rules joining By opinion those the judges superfluous of construction i n t h e main by r e n d e r i n g m e a n i n g l e s s and n o t e s s e n t i a l t o i t s u l t i m a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a of 57% permanent partial disability and the award compensation. Furthermore, l i k e the t r i a l court, t h e p a r t i e s have n o t t r e a t e d t h e s t i p u l a t i o n as an a d m i s s i o n t h a t t h e J a n u a r y 19, 2011, accident injuries In medically caused t h e employee and permanent d i s a b i l i t y response t o the employer's t h e permanent found by the t r i a l on a p p e a l that the e v i d e n c e does n o t s u s t a i n t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t as to medical causation, argument court. t h e e m p l o y e e does n o t e v e n m e n t i o n t h e 34 2111032 stipulations i n her b r i e f to this that the issue of medical before or apparently to, at recognizes and d i d not, injury the and court, causation outset of the 5 much l e s s maintain was s e t t l e d b y a g r e e m e n t trial. 6 The employee t h a t t h e s t i p u l a t i o n s were n o t i n t e n d e d resolve the question disability caused by as t o t h e n a t u r e the January of the 19, 2 0 1 1 , a c c i d e n t , w h i c h i s s u e s were a c t u a l l y l i t i g a t e d a n d d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t r i a l court. Considering those circumstances, and t h e p a r t i e s ' conduct b o t h d u r i n g and a f t e r t h e t r i a l and t h e e n t r y The employee notes o n l y t h a t t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o the admission o f medical evidence i n t o the record. The argument t h a t t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n i s a s s e r t e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l i n t h e m a i n o p i n i o n without the b e n e f i t of b r i e f i n g by e i t h e r p a r t y . I understand t h a t t h i s c o u r t c a n a f f i r m a j u d g m e n t on l e g a l g r o u n d s n o t a s s e r t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r t h e p a r t i e s , b u t I do n o t b e l i e v e that r u l e a p p l i e s i n these circumstances, i n which the c o u r t ' s members d i s p u t e t h e i n t e n t a n d m e a n i n g o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. 5 B o t h p a r t i e s a p p a r e n t l y u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e judgment addresses t h e i s s u e o f medical c a u s a t i o n because both p a r t i e s a d d r e s s t h e s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e as t o w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e supports the p e r t i n e n t f i n d i n g s . In her b r i e f t o t h i s court, t h e e m p l o y e e t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t she p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e form o f m e d i c a l r e c o r d s t o s u p p o r t h e r c l a i m . She does n o t a r g u e t h a t she f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e of m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n i n t h e form o f d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f m e d i c a l e x p e r t s b e c a u s e she r e l i e d on some s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n w o u l d n o t be i n i s s u e , as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n suggests. So. 3d a t . 6 35 2111032 o f t h e j u d g m e n t , as w e l l as t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d i n l i g h t o f t h e Wilson opinion, the s t i p u l a t i o n s should eliminating appellate point. the issue of medical n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d as causation and preventing r e v i e w o f t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e on t h a t 7 T h e e m p l o y e r does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t m i s i n t e r p r e t e d i t s s t i p u l a t i o n s , b u t o n l y because t h e e m p l o y e r (as w e l l as t h e employee) r e a d s t h e judgment i n i t s e n t i r e t y as I do, as a c t u a l l y a d d r e s s i n g m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n a n d m a k i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on t h a t i s s u e , n o t as a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e i s s u e c a n be a v o i d e d b a s e d on t h e s t i p u l a t i o n s o f t h e parties. The e m p l o y e r i n s t e a d d i r e c t s i t s argument t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence t o support the f i n d i n g s a c t u a l l y made b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("When f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e made i n a c t i o n s t r i e d b y t h e court without a jury, the question of the s u f f i c i e n c y ofthe e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s may t h e r e a f t e r be r a i s e d w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e p a r t y r a i s i n g t h e q u e s t i o n h a s made i n t h e c o u r t an o b j e c t i o n t o s u c h f i n d i n g s o r h a s made a m o t i o n t o amend them o r a m o t i o n f o r judgment o r a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . " ) , t h e e m p l o y e r d i d n o t have t o f i l e a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e i t s argument t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d i d not s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s m e d i c a l - c a u s a t i o n findings. Therefore, t h e e m p l o y e r w o u l d n o t b e , as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n s t a t e s , "rewarded f o r f a i l i n g t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e , " So. 3d at , i f t h i s c o u r t a c t u a l l y a d d r e s s e d i t s argument on appeal. 7 M o r e o v e r , I s e e no n e e d t o d e n i g r a t e e m p l o y e r ' s c o u n s e l for any a l l e g e d " o v e r s i g h t " o r " f a i l u r e t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e l e g a l import" of the t r i a l court's statements regarding the parties' stipulations, So. 3d a t , given the context i n w h i c h t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s were made a n d i n l i g h t o f t h e r e m a i n d e r of t h e judgment, which does, i n f a c t , address medical causation. 36 2111032 "To e s t a b l i s h m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n , t h e [employee] must show t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t was, i n f a c t , a c o n t r i b u t i n g cause of the employee's [injury]. It is not n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e e m p l o y m e n t - r e l a t e d i n j u r y be t h e s o l e cause, or the dominant cause, of the [ i n j u r y ] , so l o n g as i t was a c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e . I f t h e employee s u f f e r s from a l a t e n t p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n t h a t i n e v i t a b l y w i l l produce i n j u r y or death, but t h e employment a c t s on t h e p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n t o h a s t e n t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f symptoms o r a c c e l e r a t e i t s injurious consequences, the employment w i l l be considered the m e d i c a l cause of the resulting injury." A s s o c i a t e d Grocers of the South, I n c . v. Goodwin, 965 1102, (citations omitted). 1110 The by ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) So. 2d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t e n t e r e d as p a r t o f t h e judgment made the t r i a l court indicate t h a t the t r i a l t h a t t h e s t r a i n f r o m t h e J a n u a r y 19, 2011, court determined a c c i d e n t caused the e m p l o y e e "a b r o a d b a s e d d i s c b u l g e and m i d l i n e a n n u l a r t e a r a t b o t h t h e L-3 and L-4 "physical l e v e l s of the lumbar s p i n e " because those f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the h i s t o r y contained i n t h e r e c o r d s o f [ t h e e m p l o y e e ] h a v i n g s u f f e r e d an on t h e j o b injury." However, as t h e e m p l o y e r a r g u e s , no m e d i c a l o p i n e d i n t e s t i m o n y o r i n documents t h a t t h e J a n u a r y 19, accident, indicate caused those t h a t those injuries. The medical c o n d i t i o n s were d e g e n e r a t i v e 2011, records a l l i n nature. M o r e o v e r , no m e d i c a l e x p e r t o p i n e d t h a t t h e J a n u a r y 19, 37 expert 2011, 2111032 a c c i d e n t had aggravated those u n d e r l y i n g c o n d i t i o n s so as to c a u s e t h e d i s a b l i n g symptoms o f w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e e c o m p l a i n e d . I n Ex p a r t e P r i c e , 555 supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "As So. v. f a c t s t h a t are not p e c u l i a r knowledge 241 that Ala. 227, o r be same may be 229, So. of fact, disregarded 2d 430, added))). In employee s u s t a i n e d a n n u l a r province load up an of medical this though unless at Co. (1941) are not uncontroverted, i t i s a matter incline, experts the by trial because the injuries t h a t can load incline, and an case, be whether for a c t u a l l y f i t w i t h i n that category, 38 "type matter" that from court c a u s e d by the such finding t e a r s and d i s k b u l g e s lumbar-spine up 430 witnesses able t o form a c o r r e c t o p i n i o n c o n c e r n i n g heavy Id. Stone & C o n t r a c t i n g 2 of the experts. " o n l y and t h e t r i e r s o f f a c t c a n n o t be assumed t o have (emphasis a of m e d i c a l opinions "[e]xpert c o n c l u s i v e on t h e t r i e r s experts trial the Foor, the the i n f e r e n c e from ( e m p h a s i s added; c i t i n g W a r r i o r (stating but ... the reasonable the De ( A l a . 1989), i n c l u d i n g c o n c l u s i o n s of medical evidence, 10 62 1062 the f i n d e r of f a c t s , c o u r t i s a u t h o r i z e d t o draw any within 2d 1060, pushing invaded and nature" pushing employee's the the of a heavy injuries are w i t h i n t h e i r p e c u l i a r 2111032 knowledge. (Ala. See L a m b e r t v. L i s a n t i F o o d s , I n c . , 624 So. 2d 625 C i v . App. 1993) ( a b s e n t e x p e r t testimony, trial p r o p e r l y d e n i e d b e n e f i t s t o w o r k e r who c l a i m e d t h a t unloading repetitive o f t r u c k caused back problems). Because the t r i a l court based a l l of i t s subsequent d i s a b i l i t y f i n d i n g s on i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n 2011, court t h a t t h e J a n u a r y 19, a c c i d e n t caused t h e employee's lumbar a b n o r m a l i t i e s , and because that factual determination is unsupported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, s e e A l a . Code 1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) ( 2 ) , t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l court i s due t o be reversed. 8 B e c a u s e I b e l i e v e t h e judgment s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d on t h o s e g r o u n d s , I do n o t a d d r e s s t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d by t h e employer except t o s t a t e t h a t the f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e a l m o s t e x a c t l y m i r r o r t h o s e i n Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , 873 So. 2d 1116 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , i n w h i c h o u r supreme c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a f i n d i n g o f p e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y c o u l d n o t be s u s t a i n e d when a l l o f t h e t r e a t i n g physicians f o u n d no o b j e c t i v e r e a s o n f o r t h e e m p l o y e e ' s s u b j e c t i v e complaints of pain, which the p h y s i c i a n s a t t r i b u t e d to malingering o r symptom m a g n i f i c a t i o n , a n d a l l o f t h e p h y s i c i a n s r e t u r n e d t h e e m p l o y e e t o work w i t h no p e r m a n e n t i m p a i r m e n t r a t i n g a n d no r e s t r i c t i o n s . I f i n d that the a t t e m p t i n t h e m a i n o p i n i o n t o d i s t i n g u i s h Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s case e x p r e s s l y found t h e employee's s u b j e c t i v e c o m p l a i n t s t o be c r e d i b l e t o be u n p e r s u a s i v e . The t r i a l c o u r t i n Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . , a t l e a s t i m p l i e d l y made t h e same c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o r i t w o u l d n o t have r e j e c t e d t h e m e d i c a l e x p e r t s ' o p i n i o n s i n o r d e r t o f i n d t h a t t h e employee i n t h a t case had a permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y . 8 39

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.