TRA Transportation v. James Patterson (Appeal from Tallapoosa Circuit Court: CV-09-80) Affirmed. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/13/2013 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 Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120182 TRA T r a n s p o r t a t i o n v. James P a t t e r s o n Appeal from T a l l a p o o s a C i r c u i t (CV-09-80) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . AFFIRMED. See Rule NO OPINION. 53(a)(1) a n d ( a ) ( 2 ) ( F ) , A l a . R. App. P.; E x p a r t e BE&K, I n c . , 728 So. 2d 621, 624 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ; S h i v e r v . B u t l e r C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 797 So. 2 d 1086, 1089 ( A l a . Civ. 2120182 App. 2000); App. 1 9 7 6 ) ; C o u n t y o f Wayne v . C i t y o f D e t r o i t , 233 M i c h . App. 275, Speed v . Speed, 277, 590 N.W.2d 341 So. 2d 156, 159 ( A l a . 619, 620-21 (1998); People Civ. ex r e l . M a c M u l l a n v . B a b c o c k , 38 M i c h . App. 336, 348 n.4, 196 N.W.2d 489, 495 n.4 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; a n d M i c h . C t . R. 2 . 2 0 9 ( A ) ( 3 ) . Thomas a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . 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 o u t Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h 2 writing. writing. 2120182 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g On November 30, i n the 2007, received various personal arising out o f and i n the Transportation ("the Michigan, the but result. James P a t t e r s o n ("the employee") i n j u r i e s i n an a u t o m o b i l e course o f h i s employment w i t h employer"). employer accident The paid accident the occurred employee TRA in workers' compensation b e n e f i t s under the Alabama W o r k e r s ' Compensation Act ("the A c t " ) , § 25-5-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, eventually s e t t l i n g the c l a i m w i t h the a p p r o v a l of the T a l l a p o o s a Court ("the trial court") in June 2009 for a lump sum $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 , l e a v i n g open t h e e m p l o y e e ' s r i g h t t o f u t u r e benefits. filed Before a civil e n t e r i n g i n t o the s e t t l e m e n t , a c t i o n i n Michigan ("the a g a i n s t s e v e r a l t h i r d p a r t i e s who responsible for the employee's s e t t l e d t h a t c a s e i n 2010. employer's group intervene in enforcing the the The Michigan medical employee third-party action") accidental and he A v i z e n t , the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the self-insured fund, third-party action injury, filed for credit, 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 , A l a . Code 1975, court denied the of were a l l e g e d l y p r o x i m a t e l y fund's reimbursement, r i g h t s under § Circuit a motion to the purpose of and subrogation a part of the motion to i n t e r v e n e , 3 the Act. concluding 2120182 t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r ' s i n s u r e r h a d no i n t e r e s t i n t h e t h i r d - p a r t y settlement proceeds. court The e m p l o y e r then i n the t r i a l a " p e t i t i o n t o r e o p e n " t h e June 2009 s e t t l e m e n t f o r t h e purpose of subrogation enforcing rights i t s reimbursement, under § 25-5-11 proceeds of the t h i r d - p a r t y action. the filed p e t i t i o n based Ordinarily, whether against under an e m p l o y e r , dismissed of res j u d i c a t a . o r i t s group of lex loci delecti, s e l f - i n s u r e d f u n d , h a s an interest i n the settlement proceeds of a t h i r d - p a r t y depends on occurred. 595 The judgment. the doctrine the law of and the settlement The t r i a l c o u r t on t h e d o c t r i n e e m p l o y e r now a p p e a l s f r o m t h a t credit, the state i n which the action accident See N o r t h e a s t U t i l s . , I n c . v . P i t t m a n T r u c k i n g Co., So. 2d 1351 (Ala. 1992) ( d i s t r i b u t i o n of proceeds of t h i r d - p a r t y r e c o v e r y was g o v e r n e d b y A l a b a m a l a w when employee accepted w o r k e r s ' compensation statute but i n j u r y authority validly occurred supports agree t h a t t h e agreed-upon under i n Alabama). the proposition that, Connecticut's However, i f the the law of a c e r t a i n state w i l l a l l i n j u r i e s received of benefits some parties apply t o i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e employment, t h e l a w state controls 4 the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the 2120182 proceeds Ins. of a t h i r d - p a r t y Co., 281 Ala. 388, action. See 203 2d So. Hile 110 v. L i b e r t y (1967) (applying Wisconsin's t h i r d - p a r t y c r e d i t s t a t u t e to proceeds of party suit arising under Alabama law because Mut. third- parties had agreed t h a t W i s c o n s i n ' s w o r k e r s ' compensation laws would a p p l y to a l l i n j u r i e s In Avizent this r e c e i v e d i n course of case, alleged when that filing employment). i t s motion t h e e m p l o y e e had to entered into w r i t t e n agreement p u r s u a n t t o which a l l i n j u r i e s the course of his employment g o v e r n e d by t h e t e r m s that i t claimed pursuant to evidently § an of the A c t . interest 25-5-11, d i d not with refute in not the a valid received i n employer Avizent the intervene, would be further asserted third-party proceeds Michigan the a l l e g a t i o n law. The that he employee had agreed t h a t Alabama law would a p p l y t o h i s w o r k - r e l a t e d i n j u r i e s , and the employee e v i d e n t l y d i d not c o n t e s t the m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e on the ground that Michigan, as opposed to Alabama, law c o n t r o l l e d A v i z e n t ' s r i g h t s to the t h i r d - p a r t y proceeds. The p a r t i e s thus a t l e a s t i m p l i c i t l y agreed t h a t Alabama law would govern Avizent's reimbursement, rights. 5 credit, and subrogation 2120182 Section part, 25-5-11(a) that, against of the Act provides, " [ t ] o the extent the other party, of i n pertinent the recovery the employer shall of damages be e n t i t l e d r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r t h e amount o f c o m p e n s a t i o n t h e r e t o f o r e on a c c o u n t o f i n j u r y o r d e a t h . " 11, to be r e i m b u r s e d i t s c o m p e n s a t i o n a third Moore, party, Alabama however Workers' 1350 outlay has a r i g h t f r o m any denominated. Compensation ( d i s c u s s i n g American Econ. paid By t h e p l a i n t e r m s o f § 25-5¬ an e m p l o y e r , o r i t s g r o u p s e l f - i n s u r e d f u n d , from to § See 21:76 recovery 2 Terry (West A. 1998) I n s . Co. v. Thompson, 643 So. 2d ( A l a . 1994) ( h o l d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f i n t h i r d - p a r t y a c t i o n c o u l d n o t a v o i d e m p l o y e r ' s r e i m b u r s e m e n t r i g h t s u n d e r § 25-5¬ 11 b y d e n o m i n a t i n g p a y m e n t s as b e i n g of c o n s o r t i u m ) ) . "employer shall S e c t i o n 25-5-11(a) be e n t i t l e d solely to wife further provides to subrogation for loss t h a t an f o r medical and v o c a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s e x p e n d e d b y t h e e m p l o y e r on b e h a l f o f t h e employee," thereby i n s u r e d fund, employee, giving an e m p l o y e r , who has p a i d f o r t h e m e d i c a l the r i g h t to subrogation third-party o r i t s group recovery against c a r e o f an i n j u r e d that p o r t i o n of a a t t r i b u t a b l e to medical 6 self- expenses. See 2120182 T r o t t v. B r i n k s , I n c . , 972 So. BE&K C o n s t r . So. 2d In Co., this 728 case, the 2d 81 621 Michigan ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ; and Ex parte ( A l a . 1998). court apparently determined t h a t M i c h i g a n law w o u l d n o t a l l o w t h e e m p l o y e e t o r e c o v e r the t h i r d p a r t i e s damages f o r l o s t wages and The Michigan court, therefore, ruled medical that any from bills. damages r e c o v e r e d by t h e e m p l o y e e f r o m t h e t h i r d p a r t i e s c o u l d n o t subject to Avizent's § 25-5-11. reimbursement or subrogation In o t h e r words, the Michigan court 1 be r i g h t s under decided that A v i z e n t had no i n t e r e s t i n t h e t h i r d - p a r t y p r o c e e d s t h a t w o u l d support i n t e r v e n t i o n under Rule Court Rules of 1985. 2.209(A)(3) of the Michigan 2 I t appears t h a t the M i c h i g a n c o u r t e r r e d i n at l e a s t respect. A s s u m i n g M i c h i g a n law does n o t a l l o w t h e r e c o v e r y one of When an e m p l o y e e c o v e r e d by t h e A c t r e c e i v e s i n j u r i e s i n a n o t h e r s t a t e due t o t h e f a u l t o f a t h i r d p a r t y , u n d e r t h e d o c t r i n e o f l e x l o c i d e l e c t i , t h e law o f t h a t s t a t e c o n t r o l s h i s or her r i g h t of recovery a g a i n s t the t h i r d p a r t i e s . See F i t z g e r a l d v. A u s t i n , 715 So. 2d 795 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997); and P o w e l l v. S a p p i n g t o n , 495 So. 2d 569 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . 1 Subsection (A)(3) p r o v i d e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t a p e r s o n has a r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n an a c t i o n upon t i m e l y a p p l i c a t i o n "when t h e a p p l i c a n t c l a i m s an i n t e r e s t r e l a t i n g t o the p r o p e r t y or t r a n s a c t i o n which i s the s u b j e c t of the a c t i o n " and t h e a p p l i c a n t " i s so s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n may as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r i m p a i r o r impede t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s a b i l i t y to p r o t e c t that i n t e r e s t . " 2 7 2120182 l o s t wages a n d m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s , a n d t h a t any r e c o v e r y from t h e t h i r d p a r t i e s c o u l d n o t be d e n o m i n a t e d as s u c h , i t r e m a i n s t h a t , under t h e Alabama group for s e l f - i n s u r e d fund, w o u l d be e n t i t l e d i t s compensation approximately error the t r i a l or a t t r i b u t e medical outlay, allegedly totaled court some p a r t could not correct that of the t h i r d - p a r t y proceeds t o e x p e n s e s f o r w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e r w o u l d have a r i g h t t o subrogation. Once t h e M i c h i g a n r i g h t s u n d e r § 25-5-11, Avizent final and t h e e m p l o y e r . jurisdiction judgment court adjudicated Avizent's t h a t j u d g m e n t became r e s j u d i c a t a as j u d i c a t a as s e t f o r t h i n M i c h i g a n "'a which t o reimbursement $100,000. Nevertheless, to l a w c i t e d above, t h e e m p l o y e r , a n d i t s rendered on t h e m e r i t s Under the doctrine of res appellate-court decisions, by a court of competent i s c o n c l u s i v e as t o t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s a n d t h e i r p r i v i e s , a n d , as t o them, c o n s t i t u t e s an a b s o l u t e b a r t o a s u b s e q u e n t a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e same c l a i m , demand o r cause Detroit, (1998) The of a c t i o n . ' " 233 M i c h . App. (quoting Black's Michigan court County o f Wayne v. C i t y 275, 277, 590 N.W.2d 619, Law D i c t i o n a r y 1305 ( 6 t h e d . clearly had j u r i s d i c t i o n 8 to of 620-21 1990)). adjudicate 2120182 A v i z e n t ' s i n t e r e s t i n the proceeds of the t h i r d - p a r t y See action. Ex p a r t e BE&K, I n c . , 728 So. 2d a t 624 ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a t r i a l judge o v e r s e e i n g a t h i r d - p a r t y a c t i o n has j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine an e m p l o y e r ' s i n t e r e s t a c t i o n under § 25-5-11). finally, denied that determined The M i c h i g a n c o u r t a l s o p l a i n l y , a n d the merits of Avizent's i t s motion t o i n t e r v e n e . i t i s in privity i n the proceeds of t h a t with c l a i m when i t The e m p l o y e r does n o t deny Avizent. Consequently, the d o c t r i n e o r r e s j u d i c a t a b a r r e d t h e employer from r a i s i n g t h e same c l a i m , i . e . , i t s c l a i m f o r r e i m b u r s e m e n t a n d s u b r o g a t i o n under § 25-5-11, b e f o r e t h e t r i a l court. In Buco B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t o r s , I n c . v . M y r i c k , 863 So. 2d 1130, 1134 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , a p l u r a l i t y 3 of t h i s court stated that "where t r i a l c o u r t s i n w h i c h t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m s have b e e n b r o u g h t make no d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e proper allocation of settlement proceeds with r e s p e c t t o f u t u r e medical expenses, or e r r o n e o u s l y d e t e r m i n e t h a t no p o r t i o n o f a t h i r d - p a r t y r e c o v e r y i s a l l o c a b l e t o s u c h e x p e n s e s , i t d e v o l v e s upon courts hearing employees' workers'-compensation claims, i n the f i r s t instance, t o r e c t i f y such errors or omissions by 'fairly apportion[ing]' The p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e o f t h e r e a s o n i n g i n a p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n i s q u e s t i o n a b l e a t b e s t . See Ex p a r t e A c h e n b a c h , 783 So. 2d 4 ( A l a . 2000) . 3 9 2120182 t h i r d - p a r t y r e c o v e r i e s so as t o e q u i t a b l y d e t e r m i n e what p o r t i o n s t h e r e o f a r e ' a t t r i b u t a b l e t o m e d i c a l (and v o c a t i o n a l ) e x p e n s e s , b o t h p a s t and f u t u r e . ' " (Quoting Ex parte BE&K, Inc., 728 added).) However, t h e u n d e r l i n e d p o r t i o n s o f t h e a b o v e - q u o t e d s t a t e m e n t were o b i t e r d i c t u m . 2d 1028, not 1031 to 2d at 624 (emphasis Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 838 ( A l a . 2002) ( " [ O ] b i t e r d i c t u m i s , by e s s e n t i a l to the dictum."). See So. judgment of the definition, court which s t a t e s I n Buco B u i l d i n g , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t was c o r r e c t an e r r o r c o m m i t t e d by So. the asked federal d i s t r i c t the not court t h a t p r e s i d e d over the i n j u r e d employee's t h i r d - p a r t y a c t i o n . The facts federal as presented district court in the had opinion never ruled indicate on r i g h t s u n d e r § 25-5-11 b e c a u s e no p a r t y had jurisdiction f o r that purpose. the court initial to Rather, address the the ever injured employee's employer's e x p e n s e s . Thus, t h e third-party foregoing See 559 2005) ( A l a . C r i m . App. employer's invoked i t s claim was that i t care based recovery of on medical s t a t e m e n t i n Buco B u i l d i n g has no p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e . n.6 the the c i r c u i t c o u r t c o u l d suspend i t s o b l i g a t i o n t o f u r n i s h medical the that S t a t e v. no p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e ) . 10 J.M.W., 936 So. 2d (noting that o b i t e r dictum 555, has 2120182 From my r e a d i n g o f o u r c a s e l a w , i n c l u d i n g Buco B u i l d i n g , it i s apparent that e i t h e r a court p r e s i d i n g over a third- p a r t y a c t i o n o r a court p r e s i d i n g over a workers' compensation c l a i m may a d j u d i c a t e an e m p l o y e r ' s r e i m b u r s e m e n t , c r e d i t , a n d subrogation rights under § judgments g e n e r a l l y p r o v i d e s makes a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n , judicata are present, law compensation to allow claims However, the law o f t h a t , once one o f t h o s e courts and a l l t h e o t h e r elements o f r e s the other a d j u d i c a t e t h e same c l a i m . general 25-5-11. court Nothing circuit may not t h e r e a f t e r i n the A c t modifies courts overseeing to s i t i n the capacity c o u r t t o c o r r e c t e r r o r s made b y a s e p a r a t e third-party action i n i t s determinations that workers' o f an a p p e l l a t e trial court in a as t o an e m p l o y e r ' s r i g h t s u n d e r § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 , as t h e d i c t a i n Buco B u i l d i n g i m p l i e s . The court circuit court settlement 5-11, correctly that decided had approved B u i l d i n g that the the workers' compensation c o u l d a d j u d i c a t e t h e e m p l o y e r ' s r i g h t s u n d e r § 25¬ but only because the f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t already adjudicated that claim. correctly i n Buco determined that, court had not In t h i s case, the t r i a l because the Michigan court court had a l r e a d y d e f i n i t i v e l y d e c i d e d t h e e m p l o y e r ' s r i g h t s u n d e r § 25- 11 2120182 5-11, the adjudicating doctrine of res t h e same c l a i m . j u d g m e n t i s due t o be judicata precluded i t from Therefore, I concur that i t s 4 affirmed. T h e e m p l o y e r c o m p l a i n s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e d i d not t i m e l y r a i s e the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of r e s j u d i c a t a under R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. However, t h e e m p l o y e r d i d n o t a r g u e t h a t p o i n t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e r e b y w a i v e d i t f o r purposes of t h i s appeal. See S h i v e r v. B u t l e r C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 797 So. 2d 1086, 1089 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . 4 12

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.