 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Couch v. City of Rainbow City12/17/2004
jury' shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and shall not include a disease in any form, except for occupational disease or where it results naturally and unavoidably from the accident. Injury shall include physical injury caused either by carpal tunnel syndrome disorder or by other cumulative trauma disorder if either disorder arises out of and in the course of the employment, and breakage or damage to eyeglasses, hearing aids, dentures, or other prosthetic devices which function as part of the body, when injury to them is incidental to an on-the-job injury to the body. Injury does not include an injury caused by the act of a third person or fellow employee intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him or her and not directed against him or her as an employee or because of his or her employment. Injury does not include a mental disorder or mental injury that has neither been produced nor been proximately caused by some physical injury to the body."
(Emphasis added.) This court "cannot give a construction to the [Workers' Compensation ] Act which will extend it beyond its legitimate scope, nor which the language of the Act does not fairly and reasonably support." Magouirk v. United Parcel Serv., 496 So. 2d 55, 58 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986).
Under Alabama law, for an employee to recover for a psychological disorder, the employee must have suffered a physical injury that proximately caused the psychological disorder. Ex parte Voungsouvanh, 795 So. 2d 625 (Ala. 2000). It is undisputed that Couch did not suffer any physical injury. Therefore, the trial court properly entered a summary judgment in favor of the City.
MURDOCK, Judge, concurring in the result.
In Herchenhahn v. Amoco Chemical Co., 688 So. 2d 847 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997), the employee sought to recover "occupational disease" benefits under Article 4 of the Workers' Compensation Act for a psychological disorder alleged to have been caused by the employee's supervisor. In affirming the trial court's judgment denying benefits to the employee, the Court of Civil Appeals quoted the definition of "occupational disease" in ยง 25-5-110(1), Ala. Code 1975, and explained that " or 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." Herchenhahn, 688 So. 2d at 849 (citing Clark v. Russell Corp., 671 So. 2d 677 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995)). The court based its affirmance of the trial court's judgment on the ground that there was "nothing peculiar about Herchenhahn's employment ... that made him more susceptible to harassment by a supervisor than he would have been in any other kind of employment." 688 So. 2d at 850.
In the present case, the employee seeks to recover occupational-disease benefits under Article 4 of the Act for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression allegedly caused by a series of traumatic incidents she experienced as a police dispatcher. This case is distinguishable from Herchenhahn, however, in that the evidence tends to support the employee's contention that her psychological disorders were in fact caused by hazards that are (1) in excess of those ordinarily incident to employment in general, and (2) different in character than those found in the general run of occupations. I therefore disagree with the main opinion as to the applicability of Herchenhahn to the present case.
Nonetheless, I believe the result reached in this case by the main opinion is correct and that this court should affirm the trial court's denial of benefits. I reach this c
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.
|
|