 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dunlop Tire Corp. v. Arch12/1/2000
Dunlop Tire Corporation ("Dunlop") appeals from an order entered by the Madison County Circuit Court determining that it must pay a medical bill incurred by Spencer F. Arch, Jr. We dismiss the appeal as from a non-final judgment.
Arch sued Dunlop in July 1998, alleging that he had been employed by Dunlop and that he had suffered a back injury in the course of his employment. Arch's one-count complaint sought (1) workers'- compensation benefits; (2) medical benefits; (3) a lump-sum attorney fee; and (4) any other relief to which he was entitled. Dunlop denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted various affirmative defenses.
On August 4, 1999, Arch filed a "motion for pendente lite relief," in which he requested the issuance of "an order authorizing and directing admission to the Pain and Rehabilitation Institute of Birmingham, Alabama ["PRI"], at [Dunlop]'s expense or, alternatively, an Order requiring [Dunlop] or its workers' compensation insurance carrier to immediately approve proposed admission to the pain program beginning August 8, 1999." In that motion, Arch alleged that his authorized treating neurosurgeon had, on July 8, 1999, referred Arch to PRI for evaluation and treatment, but that Dunlop and its insurance carrier had refused to approve his admission to PRI's four-week in-house pain treatment program. In its response, Dunlop contended that Arch's neurosurgeon had altered his referral. On August 6, 1999, the trial court entered an order requiring Dunlop to "immediately approve and assume the responsibilities for payment of services to be rendered by beginning on August 8, 1999."
On January 25, 2000, Arch filed a motion for an immediate partial summary judgment "only upon the issue of medical benefits owed to ," alleging that Dunlop had refused to pay the charges Arch had incurred during his treatment at PRI. Dunlop filed a response in opposition. The trial court entered an order on March 23, 2000, granting Arch's motion and directing Dunlop to pay Arch's expenses incurred at PRI. After Dunlop moved for that order to be "reexamined," the trial court entered an amended order purporting to direct the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala.R.Civ.P.
Although the parties have not challenged our appellate jurisdiction, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal, because "jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu." Wallace v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) (quoting Nunn v. Baker, 518 So. 2d 711, 712 (Ala. 1987)).
In pertinent part, Ala. Code 1975, ยง 12-22-2, provides that an appeal will lie to the appropriate appellate court, within the time and in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, " rom any final judgment of the circuit court" (emphasis added). However, if more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, Rule 54(b), Ala.R.Civ.P., provides that "the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims ... upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment."
The trial court's revised order granting Arch's motion for a partial summary judgment expressly invoked Rule 54(b). However, in Precision American Corp. v. Leasing Service Corp., 505 So. 2d 380 (Ala. 1987), the Alabama Supreme Court held that a trial court does not have unbounded discretion under that rule to "certify" any order as a final judgment. In Precision, a beneficiary of a lease guaranty (LSC) asserted, among other claims, a claim for damages against its guarantor
Page 1 2 3 4 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|