 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Couch v. City of Rainbow City12/17/2004
64 So. 2d 412 (Ala. 1990).
Couch first argues on appeal that the trial court erred by misconstruing Article 4 of the Act to require a party seeking compensation for an alleged occupational disease to demonstrate a physical injury. Specifically, Couch asserts that the trial court's judgment finding that Couch did not suffer a "physical injury" demonstrates the trial court's failure to distinguish between an occupational disease and a nonoccupational injury. We disagree.
As noted earlier, Couch's initial complaint sought relief under the Act for an alleged occupational disease. She later amended her complaint to include a request for relief on the basis of a physical injury. Couch correctly points out on appeal that an employee can petition for relief under alternate theories. See City of Hoover v. Phillips, [Ms. 2021023, May 7, 2004] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2004)(recognizing that a claimant can assert claims for benefits under Article 3 and Article 4 of the Act). In its judgment, the trial court specifically addressed the failure of Couch to demonstrate a physical injury. "Under Alabama law, for an employee to recover for psychological disorders, the employee must have suffered a physical injury to the body and that physical injury must be a proximate cause of the psychological disorders." Ex parte Vongsouvanh, 795 So. 2d 625, 628 (Ala. 2000). It is undisputed that Couch did not suffer a physical injury and that no physical injury contributed to her PTSD. While the judgment of the trial court denying Couch's claim for workers' compensation benefits pursuant to Article 3 of the Act is due to be affirmed, this court has previously held that a trial court's judgment awarding benefits will be affirmed if the evidence supports an award under either Article 3 or Article 4. City of Hoover v. Phillips, supra. Therefore, we will address Couch's claim for workers' compensation benefits on the basis of an alleged occupational disease pursuant to Article 4 of the Act.
Regardless of the trial court's express finding of no physical injury, Couch contends on appeal that she presented substantial evidence that she suffered from an occupational disease. An occupational disease is defined as " disease arising out of and in the course of employment ..., which is due to hazards in excess of those ordinarily incident to employment in general and is peculiar to the occupation in which the employee is engaged." § 25-5-110(1), Ala. Code 1975.
"For a disease to be classified as occupational, it must derive from hazards that are (1) in excess of those ordinarily incident to employment in general, and (2) different in character from those found in the general run of occupations. Clark v. Russell Corp., 671 So. 2d 677 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995), cert. quashed, 671 So. 2d 680 (Ala. 1995). Stated another way, 'the disease must be contracted from or aggravated by exposure to a hazard which is recognized as peculiar to the normal working conditions of the employee's particular occupation.' Smith v. Colonial Bank, 607 So. 2d 1265, 1267 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). See also, Young v. City of Huntsville, 342 So. 2d 918 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976), cert denied, 342 So. 2d 924 (Ala. 1977). To recover benefits for an occupational disease, the employee must prove that the disease arose out of and in the course of his employment. § 25-5-110(1), Ala. Code 1975."
Herchenhahn v. Amoco Chem. Co., 688 So. 2d 847, 849 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
In Herchenhahn v. Amoco Chemical Co., supra, Herchenhahn sued for workers' compensation benefits alleging that he suffered a nervous breakdown, encompassing an occupational-stress disorder, as a result of harassment at work. Amoco moved for a summary judgment;
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|