West Fraser, Inc. v. Caldwell
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to determine whether the appellate court's decision in this case conflicted with the parameters of appellate review set out in "Ex parte McInish," (47 So.3d 767 (Ala. 2008)). This case arose from Windell Caldwell, Sr.'s suit against West Fraser, Inc. for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court held that Caldwell suffered a compensable injury; West Fraser appealed, arguing Caldwell did not meet his burden of proof in establishing compensability. The appellate court agreed and reversed the trial court's judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's finding that Caldwell's injury was compensable was supported by substantial evidence. Because the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence, Caldwell established that the appellate court's decision conflicted with "Ex parte McInish." Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision
Download PDF
REL: 07/20/2012- 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2012 1110513 Ex p a r t e W i n d e l l C a l d w e l l , S r . PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In r e : West F r a s e r , Inc. v. Windell Caldwell, S r . ) (Lee C i r c u i t Court, CV-10-900048; Court o f C i v i l Appeals, 2100696) STUART, Justice. 1110513 This whether Court issued a writ of the d e c i s i o n of the Court certiorari of C i v i l to determine Appeals i n West F r a s e r , I n c . v. C a l d w e l l , [Ms. 2100696, J a n u a r y 13, 2012] So. conflicts 3d ___ ( A l a . 2012), a p p e l l a t e review (Ala. 2008) . s e t out i n We conclude with the parameters Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , that i t does, 47 So. and we of 3d 767 reverse and remand. Facts On January Fraser, 29, and P r o c e d u r a l 2010, Inc., seeking Windell worker's History Caldwell, S r . , sued compensation benefits West for a b a c k i n j u r y he a l l e g e d l y s u s t a i n e d w h i l e i n t h e l i n e and scope of court his employment. On hearing, March at 8, which 2011, ore the conducted a tenus presented, t o determine the s o l e i s s u e whether trial evidence was the i n j u r y was C a l d w e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t on December 17, compensable. At the hearing, 2009, he reported to work and was assigned r e p l a c i n g t h e " k n i v e s " on a m u l c h i n g m a c h i n e . Caldwell, boxes, weighing i n order each 80 to weighing pounds. complete 50-100 the task pounds, Caldwell 2 he and testified the task of According to had move that he to lift a screen, could 2 not 1110513 c o m p l e t e t h e t a s k b e c a u s e w h i l e he was felt three "pinches" informed h i s to picked his supervisor, from back p a i n Unable in him and drive, up back, Caldwell and causing Bobby H i l l , t h a t he was that the t a s k him he pain. was him f r e e s t a n d i n g emergency m e d i c a l his to wife, Auburn clinic. a doctor. Urgent i n j u r y t h a t had occurred According to a t work. The who Care, a testimony f r o m b o t h C a l d w e l l and Rhonda, t h e y i n f o r m e d t h e m e d i c a l o f an He Rhonda, a t A u b u r n U r g e n t C a r e t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s b a c k p a i n was he suffering l e a v i n g w o r k t o see contacted drove performing the staff result medical records from t h a t v i s i t , however, c o n t a i n e d a n o t a t i o n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t "no i n j u r y " was Caldwell reported. further testified b e c a u s e h i s b a c k p a i n was him to the emergency not room that on December s u b s i d i n g , he at East Alabama had 19, 2009, Rhonda d r i v e Medical Center. C a l d w e l l and Rhonda t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y t o l d t h e m e d i c a l staff a t E a s t Alabama M e d i c a l Center t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s back pain c a u s e d by a w o r k - r e l a t e d injury. day's indicated visit, however, injury." 3 The m e d i c a l that records Caldwell was for that "denie[d] 1110513 Caldwell visited visit testified that on Auburn Urgent Care. referenced an The "injury On December 22, December 21, [on] medical 2009, he records from 2009, C a l d w e l l i n f o r m e d West F r a s e r , v i a b a c k a t w o r k on December 17, The deposition orthopaedic evidence. consistent with the of Dr. David t r e a t e d C a l d w e l l , was Scott t e s t i f i e d lifting injured 2009. testimony s u r g e o n who Dr. that 12/17." a f a c s i m i l e t r a n s m i s s i o n f r o m h i s c o u n s e l , t h a t he had his again Scott, an admitted into injuries were that Caldwell's incident Caldwell had described o c c u r r i n g a t w o r k b u t t h a t t h e i n j u r y a l s o c o u l d have occurred i n a number o f ways. West F r a s e r presented testimony s u p e r v i s o r s and a c o w o r k e r . i n f o r m e d him on December 17, how i n j u r e d h i s back or related injury. experiencing 2009, t h a t he was had Wilbert back p a i n , that "Butch" C a l d w e l l ' s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was day of the say that he alleged injury had been of Caldwell's H i l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t when C a l d w e l l b e c a u s e he he f r o m two and or 4 l e a v i n g work Caldwell the injury McCants, was a say workof w o r k i n g n e a r C a l d w e l l on the that d i d not he was a d i d not coworker t h a t he injured was hear Caldwell i n pain. He 1110513 explained t h a t he from back p a i n . later learned that Caldwell McCants a d m i t t e d t h a t , although complained of back p a i n i n t h e p a s t , he the was back pain caused by "Chris" a Caldwell work injury B a k e r , another Caldwell Caldwell had to i n f o r m e d him been b o t h e r i n g that he back. had no him by some other o u t on m e d i c a l investigate Caldwell s u f f e r i n g when he or his left had hurt of was James t h a t , when He stated Baker how Caldwell had that Caldwell had he telephoned h i s b a c k and f o r s e v e r a l weeks. knowledge had work injury. l e a v e , he condition. t h a t he suffering d i d n o t know w h e t h e r supervisor, testified l e a r n e d t h a t C a l d w e l l was was that that i t testified injured his 1 The trial court held compensable i n j u r y , s t a t i n g i n a w r i t t e n suffered a order: "The Court heard testimony from several w i t n e s s e s r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r [ C a l d w e l l ' s ] i n j u r y was work-related. The t e s t i m o n y b e f o r e t h e C o u r t was t h a t [ C a l d w e l l ] was i n j u r e d on December 17, 2009, w h i l e c h a n g i n g t h e ' k n i v e s ' on a p i e c e o f e q u i p m e n t . He r e p o r t e d t h i s i n j u r y t o h i s s u p e r v i s o r and was d r i v e n t o A u b u r n U r g e n t C a r e by h i s w i f e , as he was u n a b l e t o d r i v e h i s own v e h i c l e due t o t h e p a i n . M e d i c a l r e c o r d s o f f e r e d r e f l e c t e d t h a t t h e r e was no work-related injury. However, [ C a l d w e l l ] and h i s w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t o l d m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l that A more c o m p l e t e r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s i s p r o v i d e d i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s . ___ So. 3d a t ___ . 1 5 1110513 h i s p a i n was due t o an i n j u r y a t work a n d t h a t t h e r e c o r d s were i n c o r r e c t . The m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l who completed the medical r e p o r t s d i d not t e s t i f y a t the h e a r i n g a n d were n o t d e p o s e d . T h e r e f o r e , t h e C o u r t was w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e i r t e s t i m o n y . "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ C a l d w e l l ] a n d h i s w i f e are c r e d i b l e w i t n e s s e s . [ C a l d w e l l ] has a r o u g h l y 20year work history with [West F r a s e r ] or i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s and has been a model employee. The C o u r t p l a c e s a g r e a t d e a l o f w e i g h t on [ C a l d w e l l ' s ] e x e m p l a r y work h i s t o r y f o r t h e same e m p l o y e r . "Having c o n s i d e r e d t h e t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , as w e l l as t h e a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ C a l d w e l l ] h a s met h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f . ... The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ C a l d w e l l ] h a s s u f f e r e d a compensable i n j u r y and i s e n t i t l e d t o medical coverage as w e l l as temporary total d i s a b i l i t y from t h e time o f t h e a c c i d e n t . " (Footnote omitted.) West F r a s e r a p p e a l e d Court of C i v i l Appeals, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment t o t h e a r g u i n g t h a t C a l d w e l l h a d n o t met h i s burden of proof i n e s t a b l i s h i n g c o m p e n s a b i l i t y . C i v i l Appeals agreed and r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l holding that The C o u r t o f c o u r t ' s judgment, although " [ C a l d w e l l ] p r e s e n t e d some e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he i n j u r e d h i s b a c k [ a t work] ... , t h a t e v i d e n c e does n o t amount t o s u b s t a n t i a l evidence that w i l l support the determination of the t r i a l court." So. 3d a t . Standard o f Review 6 1110513 "The s t a n d a r d o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i n w o r k e r s ' compensation cases i s governed by § 25-5-81(e), A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t , ' [ i ] n r e v i e w i n g p u r e findings of fact, the finding of the c i r c u i t court s h a l l n o t be r e v e r s e d i f t h a t f i n d i n g i s 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 . ' ' S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' i s '"evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y that fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " ' Ex p a r t e Trinity Indus., I n c . , 680 So. 2d 262, 268 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ( q u o t i n g West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co., 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . "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 t h e duty of the t r i a l court, which had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e t h e w i t n e s s e s a n d t h e iirr demeanors, a n d not the appellate c o u r t , t o make credibility d e t e r m i n a t i o n s and t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e 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. 1998) . The r o l e o f t h e a p p e l l a t e court i s not t o reweigh the evidence but to a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i f i t s f i n d i n g s a r e r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e and 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 therefrom. Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y I n d u s . , 680 So. 2d a t 2 68-69; 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 ( A l a . 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 Bus. Owners A s s ' n W o r k e r s ' Comp. Fund, 867 So. 2d 1099, 1102 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . " r-; Ex p a r t e H a y e s , 70 So. 3d 1211, ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ , ^ , , ^ ^ ^ ^ 4 - ^ ^ 1215 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . Discussion Caldwell maintains that the Court of C i v i l Appeals e r r e d in reversing the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment because, 7 he s a y s , he 1110513 presented proving substantial t h a t the evidence i n j u r y was Appeals h e l d that i t s review see Ex (Ala. parte Southern to satisfy compensable. The of the evidence, Energy Homes, Inc., 2003), e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the testimony i n j u r y t o h i s employment was a fair-minded reasonably reviewing amount According causation the evidence, substantial determination burden Court of in i t s 873 totality, So. linking 2d 1116 Caldwell's so i m p l a u s i b l e i n s u b s t a n c e of the from that that testimony. trial that will court." t o C a l d w e l l , however, i n r e a c h i n g So. support 3d the at . consequently, he a r g u e s , i t s d e c i s i o n c o n f l i c t s w i t h Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , which provides: " I n r e v i e w i n g a d e c i s i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s not p e r m i t t e d to reweigh the evidence, because w e i g h i n g the e v i d e n c e i s s o l e l y a f u n c t i o n of the t r i e r of f a c t . However, i t i s t h e f u n c t i o n of the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t to a s c e r t a i n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence " So. 3d a t 778. 8 not i t s d e c i s i o n , the Court of C i v i l Appeals reweighed the evidence; 47 not After i t h e l d t h a t " t h a t e v i d e n c e does evidence of Civil p e r s o n e x e r c i s i n g i m p a r t i a l judgment w o u l d infer to his 1110513 We to have r e v i e w e d the trial finding court, that supported injured the and totality we Caldwell's of the conclude injury h i s back w h i l e that was by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . a the presented trial court's compensable one is C a l d w e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a mulching m a c h i n e . C a l d w e l l and Rhonda b o t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y informed the medical changing evidence "knives" on s t a f f a t e a c h h e a l t h - c a r e f a c i l i t y a t w h i c h he t r e a t e d t h a t C a l d w e l l had the medical the records i n j u r e d h i s b a c k a t work. f r o m t h e f i r s t two h e a l t h - c a r e t h a t he medical had injured records, i.e., Caldwell's initial thereafter, indicate h i s b a c k a t work, those visit to that the a staffs work-related. the days i n s e v e r a l ways, was were "fair-minded judgment [could] persons reasonably in the Additionally, although i t consistent with infer" 9 exercise from this and informed l i f t i n g i n c i d e n t C a l d w e l l had d e s c r i b e d as c a u s i n g t h e Thus, after facility S c o t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s back i n j u r y , c o u l d have o c c u r r e d medical a l l subsequent four health-care medical t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s b a c k i n j u r y was Dr. created Although facilities C a l d w e l l v i s i t e d do n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t he i n f o r m e d staff was of the injury. impartial evidence that 1110513 C a l d w e l l had i n j u r e d h i s b a c k a t work and t h a t t h e i n j u r y was compensable. The Court Southern Hooks, of Energy 844 So. Civil Homes, s u p r a ; 2d 1267 C o n s t r u c t o r s v. D a v i s , in determining evidence to the Jackson 3d 1277 Caldwell that 45 So. did h e a v i l y on Ex Landscaping, ( A l a . C i v . App. We 2002); and not present case. context case-by-case workers' v. G.UB.MK. 2010), substantial court's that these that t h e i r reasoning i s applicable These c a s e s of parte Inc. ( A l a . C i v . App. agree w i t h the Court of C i v i l Appeals a r e i n s t r u c t i v e and this relied o f c o m p e n s a b i l i t y so as t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l judgment. cases Appeals r e m i n d us compensation that compensability i n i s determined review of the t o t a l i t y of the evidence upon a presented. These c a s e s , h o w e v e r , a r e f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h i s case. For testimony immediately had example, that the i n each of injury these suffered cases, was the employee's work-related was q u e s t i o n a b l e i n l i g h t of the l e n g t h y p e r i o d t h a t e l a p s e d between the alleged work-related injury e m p l o y e e ' s s t a t i n g t h a t t h e i n j u r y was w o r k - r e l a t e d . most, f o u r d a y s p a s s e d and the Here, at b e t w e e n C a l d w e l l ' s l e a v i n g work as r e s u l t o f t h e b a c k i n j u r y and t h e d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f t h e 10 a injury 1110513 as a work-related injury. unlike the testimony Homes, Hooks, and presented i n t h i s and quality o f t h e employees Davis, case, that Therefore, along persons testimony, i n Ex p a r t e Southern the other evidence c o n s t i t u t e d "evidence fair-minded i m p a r t i a l judgment with Caldwell's o f such weight i n the exercise of [could] reasonably i n f e r " that Caldwell's i n j u r y was w o r k - r e l a t e d . We conclude from our review of the t o t a l i t y of the e v i d e n c e , w h i c h a d m i t t e d l y r e v e a l s some i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e evidence, that the t r i a l court's determination that Caldwell's injury The not i s compensable i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. t e s t i m o n y l i n k i n g C a l d w e l l ' s i n j u r y t o h i s employment was so i m p l a u s i b l e i n s u b s t a n c e that a fair-minded person e x e r c i s i n g i m p a r t i a l judgment c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r i t causation. West F r a s e r p r e s e n t e d c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e . The t r i a l court reconciled the c o n f l i c t i n g testimony, evidence, and compensable. supported from concluded Because that the t r i a l by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, Caldwell's court's injury was determination i s C a l d w e l l has e s t a b l i s h e d that the d e c i s i o n of the Court of C i v i l Appeals Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h a n d must be r e v e r s e d . 11 weighed the conflicts with 1110513 Conclusion Based Civil on t h e f o r e g o i n g , Appeals i s reversed t h e judgment and t h i s proceedings consistent with t h i s case of the Court of i s remanded f o r opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. M a l o n e , C . J . , a n d W o o d a l l , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Shaw, M a i n , a n d Wise, J J . , concur. Murdock, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t . 12 1110513 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e The main ( c o n c u r r i n g i n the opinion between the d e c i s i o n case and concludes So. 3d 767 (Ala. that of the Court the h o l d i n g of t h i s 2008). result). there of C i v i l Court I agree. i n Ex is a Appeals conflict in this parte McInish, 47 C o n f l i c t s of t h i s nature, h o w e v e r , a r e p e r f e c t l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e and, i n d e e d , u n a v o i d a b l e given this Inc., 873 C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n So. 2d 1116 Energy ( A l a . 2003). E x c e p t as t o c e r t a i n t y p e s o f c a s e s w i t h w h i c h we here concerned, the d e c i s i o n Homes, § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975, i n a workers' compensation case are provides s h a l l be not that based upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o "a p r e p o n d e r a n c e the evidence." of the t r i a l reversed tasks c o u r t based i f evidence." S e c t i o n 25-5-81(e)(2) that on a f a c t u a l finding is of s t a t e s t h a t a judgment finding supported by "shall not be substantial I n Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e of making 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 w e i g h i n g the e v i d e n c e , and u l t i m a t e l y f i n d i n g f a c t s , a r e w i t h i n t h e domain of the t r i a l court: " ' [ A ] n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l not r e v e r s e a judgment b a s e d upon a p a r t i c u l a r f i n d i n g o f f a c t " i f t h a t f i n d i n g i s 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 -- i f t h a t f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by 'evidence of such 13 1110513 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 r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' " Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y I n d u s . , I n c . , 680 So. 2d 262, 268-69 (Ala. 1996) ( q u o t i n g West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989)) (emphasis added).'" 47 So. So. 3d 3d at 749, decision 752 of permitted evidence So. 771 (Ala. the to is ( q u o t i n g KGS trial reweigh solely 3d a t whether Civ. App. court, the an function the of record v. 2006)). because the McInish, 47 "In reviewing appellate evidence a Inc. trier court a is not weighing the of fact." 47 778. As Steel, to i n the present case contains s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n support of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, it i s worth emphasizing t h a t the t r i a l court expressly stated i n i t s o p i n i o n t h a t i t had c o n s i d e r e d t h e t e s t i m o n y C a l d w e l l , S r . , and h i s w i f e and f o u n d i t t o be of W i n d e l l credible. trial court further stated, expressly, that i t placed a deal of exemplary weight on 20-year Caldwell's record of testimony work with C o n s i d e r i n g a l l the e v i d e n c e b e f o r e us, a m a t t e r of law, 14 West light great of Fraser, I cannot conclude, that Caldwell's testimony t h a t t h i s C o u r t must r e j e c t i t and, in The i s so i n the p r o c e s s , his Inc. as implausible reject the 1110513 trial c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s as t o t h e c r e d i b i l i t y a n d w e i g h t of t h e evidence. The m a i n o p i n i o n t a k e s n o t e o f t h i s C o u r t ' s 2003 d e c i s i o n in Ex p a r t e Energy Southern Homes applicable" Energy Homes a n d s t a t e s i s "instructive and t h a t i n the present case. that Southern [ i t s ] reasoning i s So. 3d a t . I do not f i n d i t so. While adopted endorsing i n Southern distinguish this the totality-of-the-evidence Energy case from approach Homes, t h e m a i n o p i n i o n s e e k s t o Southern Energy Homes b a s e d m i n o r f a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s I do n o t f i n d p e r s u a s i v e . 2 on Indeed, I n S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e e m p l o y e e ' s t e s t i m o n y , "she i m m e d i a t e l y i n f o r m e d h e r s u p e r v i s o r t h a t she had b e e n i n j u r e d on t h e j o b . " 873 So. 2d a t 1117. The e m p l o y e e m i s s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y o f work; f i v e d a y s l a t e r s h e asked h e r employer t o arrange f o r h e r t o see a d o c t o r . I d . S e v e r a l months l a t e r , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e e m p l o y e e , she s u f f e r e d further work-related injury, a t which time she also i m m e d i a t e l y i n f o r m e d h e r s u p e r v i s o r . 873 So. 2d a t 1118. I n the p r e s e n t case, t h e employee i m m e d i a t e l y i n f o r m e d h i s s u p e r v i s o r on t h e d a y o f t h e i n j u r y t h a t he was s u f f e r i n g f r o m b a c k p a i n a n d t h a t he was l e a v i n g work t o s e e a d o c t o r , b u t he a p p a r e n t l y made no m e n t i o n o f t h e i n j u r y b e i n g w o r k - r e l a t e d . A c c o r d i n g t o t e s t i m o n y from both C a l d w e l l and h i s w i f e , they i n f o r m e d a m e d i c a l p r o v i d e r on t h a t d a y t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s b a c k p a i n was t h e r e s u l t o f an i n j u r y ; h o w e v e r , t h e f i r s t m e n t i o n o f s u c h an i n j u r y i n a m e d i c a l r e c o r d a p p e a r s f o u r d a y s l a t e r in connection with Caldwell's t h i r d trip to a medical p r o v i d e r . I n p o i n t o f f a c t , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f o r e g o i n g and t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e o f r e c o r d i n b o t h t h i s case and Southern Energy Homes, t h e e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e i n s u p p o r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s 2 15 1110513 the fact that the appellate with courts themselves grappling and differences i n an e f f o r t revealing. The r e a s o n we a r e h e r e , of this weighing State such factual t o d e c i d e t h e outcome o f a c a s e i s and t h e r e a l reason the C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s was s o d i v i d e d i n i t s a p p r o a c h case, 3 find to this i s i n f a c t the h o l d i n g of t h i s Court i n Southern Energy Homes. The approach adopted by t h e m a j o r i t y i n Southern Homes u n a v o i d a b l y c o n f l i c t s with the p r i n c i p l e s Energy embodied i n § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( c ) a n d ( e ) ( 2 ) , Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , a n d so many o t h e r cases that have repeatedly reaffirmed the fundamental s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e - o r e t e n u s d e f e r e n c e owed t o t h e f i n d i n g s of trial courts i n workers' terminology from one of compensation the three cases. To b o r r o w dissenting opinions p u b l i s h e d i n t h a t case, t h e h o l d i n g i n Southern Energy sub silentio compensation dissenting); "overrul[ed] precedent." see also ... so much bedrock Homes workers' 873 So. 2d a t 1128 ( J o h n s t o n e , J . , 873 So. 2d at 1124 (Lyons, J., f i n d i n g o f m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n a r g u a b l y was s t r o n g e r i n S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes t h a n i t i s h e r e . The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s ' o p i n i o n was a u t h o r e d b y Judge Moore, w i t h J u d g e s P i t t m a n a n d Thomas c o n c u r r i n g a n d Judge B r y a n a n d P r e s i d i n g Judge Thompson d i s s e n t i n g . 3 16 1110513 d i s s e n t i n g ) a n d a t 1128 (Harwood, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . U n l e s s and u n t i l t h i s d e p a r t u r e from t h e "bedrock" p r i n c i p l e s r e v i e w e d a t t h e o u t s e t o f t h i s w r i t i n g i s r e v i s i t e d a n d removed f r o m o u r jurisprudence, i t i s i n e v i t a b l e t h a t we w i l l cases the appellate i n which c o n t i n u e t o see c o u r t s are asked t o d e c i d e how much i s enough -- how much e v i d e n c e i n f a v o r o f t h e e m p l o y e r i s enough t o o u t w e i g h The struggle t h e e v i d e n c e i n f a v o r o f t h e employee. t o answer this q u e s t i o n has always s h o u l d a g a i n be, consigned s o l e l y t o t h e t r i a l 17 been, courts. and
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.
