 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smartt v. City of Huntsville12/1/2000
The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether benefits under the Trinity Act, Act No. 26, Ala. Acts 1962 (Spec. Sess.), are supplemental to workers' compensation benefits, or whether workers' compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy under the circumstances presented. See §§ 25-5-52 and -53, Ala. Code 1975. Because we conclude that the trial judge correctly granted the partial summary judgment against the appellants' Trinity Act claim, we affirm.
Randy Smartt was a fireman for the City of Huntsville ("the City"). On December 9, 1997, he sustained a fatal heart attack while testing a tool known as the "jaws of life" at the Huntsville Fire Station. His widow, Anita Smartt, filed this action on behalf of herself and her son, seeking Trinity Act benefits and workers' compensation benefits based on her husband's death.
The City moved for a partial summary judgment, contending that on the Trinity Act claim it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The City argued: (1) that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy; (2) that the Trinity Act claim was barred because of the failure to file a timely notice of claim against the City, see §§ 11-47-23 and -192; (3) that the Trinity Act does not apply to Huntsville; (4) that application of the Trinity Act cannot expand to Huntsville, because of Amendment 389, Ala. Constitution; (5) that the Trinity Act violates Amendment No. 491 of the Alabama Constitution, and equal-protection, due-process, and privileges-and-immunities provisions of both the Alabama Constitution and the United States Constitution; and (6) that the Trinity Act results in double taxation, in violation of public policy.
On March 8, 2000, the trial court granted the City's motion for a partial summary judgment against the Trinity Act claim. The court entered an "Agreed Order" on April 4, 2000, granting workers' compensation benefits to Anita Smartt and her son. On April 6, 2000, the plaintiff Anita Smartt appealed, challenging the partial summary judgment against the Trinity Act claim.
The plaintiff's primary argument is that because this Court, in City of Montgomery v. Robinson, 441 So. 2d 857 (Ala. 1983), held that Trinity Act benefits were supplemental to workers' compensation benefits, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act do not prevent her from recovering under both Acts. Although the plaintiff correctly states the holding in Robinson, subsequent amendments to the workers' compensation law and the subsequently expressed intent of the Legislature regarding the exclusivity of the workers' compensation scheme undermine the holding in Robinson and, consequently, the plaintiffs' claim.
In Robinson, this Court explained:
"Act No. 26, the `Trinity Act,' derives its origin from a fire which occurred at Montgomery in 1951. Three firemen lost their lives while fighting a fire at Trinity Presbyterian Church. At that time there were no laws under which a City of Montgomery employee could be compensated due to work-related injury. In response to this situation the Alabama Legislature enacted Act No. 233, Acts of 1951. This Act was a general act of local application with a population bracket of 57,000 to 127,000. It applied to cities within that population classification and provided that employees of such cities totally disabled in the performance of duty should receive a monthly benefit equal to one-half of their base monthly compensation at the time of the injury for the time such disability continued. It further provided that the city personnel board could order that such an employee be paid his regular compensation for a period not exceeding six months. Benefits were accorded the widow of a ci
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|