 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Guck v. Daniel & Son6/28/2002
." Ex parte Trinity Indus., 680 So. 2d at 266 n.3; Pair, 765 So. 2d at 681.
Under Rich, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Consequently, we must conclude that the employee has fulfilled both portions of his burden. First, the employee's deposition testimony constitutes substantial evidence indicating that a tree fell on him while he was performing work duties for the employer. Second, the employee has adduced substantial evidence, again through his deposition testimony, indicating that the impact of the accident has caused him to suffer back, neck, and shoulder pain; that he has been placed on medical restrictions since the accident; and that he is partially disabled.
As in Rich, supra, our sole inquiry is whether the trial court properly entered a summary judgment in favor of an employer on an employee's workers' compensation claim, and " e should not be understood as commenting upon what action should be taken by the trial court upon trial of this cause." 634 So. 2d at 1018. However, "factual disputes are to be resolved by the trial court on the merits," and " summary judgment is not proper if conflicting inferences can be drawn from the evidence." Van Prewitt v. Mobile Policemen's & Firefighters' Pension & Relief Fund Bd., 664 So. 2d 223, 224 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). Because genuine issues of material fact remain in this cause, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of the employer and remand the cause for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Yates, P.J., and Crawley, Thompson, and Pittman, JJ., concur.
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.
|
|