 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Guck v. Daniel & Son6/28/2002
loyer after his injury.
On one day while the employee was restricted to light-duty work for the employer, he was instructed to "get on" a loader; when the employee stated that he did not think he could perform the requested task, he was berated by his superior. Although the employee completed the requested task, the employee testified that he had known that day that he would not be able to perform that task regularly and that he "wasn't going to take getting hollered at"; the employee then ceased working for the employer.
After leaving the employer's service and after being discharged to return to full-duty work, the employee began working as a truck driver, first for Jimmy Golden Trucking and then for Culverhouse Trucking. The employee testified that he told Culverhouse Trucking when he was hired that he had had a back injury , but that he believed he was capable of working as a truck driver without restrictions. However, while working for Culverhouse Trucking, where he not only drove a large truck but also loaded plywood and electronic devices onto trailers for hauling, the employee continued to experience back and neck pain that ultimately caused him to conclude that he could not continue working as a truck driver. At the time of his deposition in July 2000, the employee testified that he undergoes "bad spells" in which he experiences severe pain in his right arm, burning sensations in his neck and shoulder, and numbness in his right arm and leg; that he had been restricted to light-duty work by Dr. Scott since the preceding January; and that Dr. Scott had forbidden him to lift over 20 pounds or to operate heavy equipment, such as bulldozers or logging equipment. The employee currently takes a number of medications, including narcotic pain relievers and sleeping aids, prescribed by Dr. Scott.
This court has stated:
"For an injury to be compensable, it must be 'caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of' the employee's employment. ยง 25-5-51, Ala. Code 1975. The phrase 'arising out of' an employee's employment requires a causal connection between the injury and the employment. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pettus, 623 So. 2d 313 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). The phrase 'in the course of' the employee's employment refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident occurred. Id. In accidental cases, i.e., those involving a sudden and traumatic event, an employee must produce substantial evidence tending to show that the alleged accident occurred and must also establish medical causation by showing that the accident caused or was a contributing cause of the injury . Ex parte Trinity Indus., Inc., 680 So. 2d at 266 n.3 [(Ala. 1996)]. Medical causation may be found by the trial court without testimony from medical doctors. Ex parte Price, 555 So. 2d 1060 (Ala. 1989). The totality of the evidence, including both lay and expert testimony, may satisfy a showing of medical causation. U.S. Steel, A Division of USX Corp. v. Nelson, 634 So. 2d 134 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)." Pair v. Jack's Family Restaurants, Inc., 765 So. 2d 678, 681 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
In this case, we are reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment in favor of an employer in a workers' compensation action where the employee's claimed injuries stem from an alleged sudden and traumatic event: an impact by a falling tree. Under Rich, Ex parte Trinity Indus., Inc., 680 So. 2d 262 (Ala. 1996), and Pair, supra, the employee's burden at the summary-judgment stage is therefore to adduce "substantial evidence" supporting the propositions (1) "that the alleged 'accident' occurred"; and (2) "that the 'accident' ... was [at least] a contributing cause of the complained-of injuries
Page 1 2 3 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|