 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
WATERS v. ALABAMA FARMERS CO-OP.8/30/1996
In January 1993, O'Neal Waters (the "worker") sued Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc. (the "company"), for workers' compensation benefits, alleging that in October
1992 he suffered an injury to his lower back caused by cumulative trauma in the line and scope of his employment, and that he is permanently and totally disabled. The worker requested compensation benefits and medical expenses. The trial court entered a summary judgment for the company.
The worker argues that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment for the company. A motion for summary judgment is to be granted when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c)(3), A.R.Civ.P. Moreover,
"In determining whether the movant has carried that burden, the court is to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. To defeat a properly supported summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party must present 'substantial evidence' creating a genuine issue of material fact — 'evidence of such weight and quality that fairminded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.' Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989)."
Capital Alliance Insurance Co. v. Thorough-Clean, Inc., 639 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Ala. 1994).
The worker has been employed by the company for more than 30 years. In 1972, the worker injured his back in the line and scope of his employment. The worker and the company settled his claim for worker's compensation benefits in 1974. The worker argues that the cumulative trauma of his employment activities has aggravated his 1972 injury and that he is now permanently and totally disabled. The company contends that the 1974 settlement bars the worker's present claim for benefits. The settlement agreement states:
"The [company] and the [worker] have agreed upon a lump sum settlement whereby the [company] will pay to the [worker] compensation on the basis of a 25% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole which would be compensation at the rate of $21.43 for 300 weeks. The [company] has heretofore paid to the [worker] temporary total in accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Alabama to a lump sum figure of $4,470.60 which sum the [company] is willing to pay and the [worker] is willing to accept in full payment, satisfaction and accord of any and all claims for and on account of said alleged injury whether under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Alabama, as last amended or otherwise, except that [the worker ] shall continue to be entitled to such medical benefits as were provided to him by the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Alabama, as of February 23, 1972."
(Emphasis added.)
The worker argues that the 1974 settlement agreement does not bar his present claim seeking compensation benefits and medical expenses caused by an aggravation of the 1972 injury. We first hold that the settlement agreement does not bar the worker 's claim for medical expenses. The agreement specifically excludes medical expenses from the issues decided by the agreement. By definition, medical expenses are not compensation pursuant to the statute. Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-1(1); Central LP Gas, Inc. v. Walls, 656 So.2d 890 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995). We must determine whether the settlement agreement bars the worker's action for compensation benefits. If his current condition is an aggravation of his 1972 injury, then he is not barred from recovery.
Page 1 2 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|