 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wix Corp. v. Davis9/16/2005
e issue whether Wix was liable for medical benefits for Davis's heart condition under the Workers' Compensation Act. While the order that was the subject of the appeal in Homes of Legend was entered pending a subsequent decision on the issue of liability, the order at issue in the present case is the decision on the issue of liability. Because of this, and because there are no associated issues that remain unresolved, that order constitutes a final, appealable judgment.
Wix also cites Ex parte Brookwood Medical Center, Inc., 895 So. 2d 1000 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004), and Ex parte Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 794 So. 2d 1085 (Ala. 2001), in opposition to Davis's motion to dismiss Wix's petition. Wix argues that each of those cases is an example of a case in which the appellate court considered the merits of a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial-court order awarding medical benefits. Those cases, however, addressed interlocutory trial-court orders entered during the pendency of litigation as to the compensability of the employees' injuries. Moreover, the issue in those cases was not the employers' liability for the employees' medical treatment. Instead, in Ex parte Brookwood Medical Center, the employer did not, in the mandamus proceeding before this court, dispute its responsibility for paying for reasonable and necessary medical treatments pending the trial of the underlying case; rather it merely challenged how that treatment was to be provided. See Ex parte Brookwood Med. Ctr. (addressing an employer's petition for a writ of mandamus in which the employer challenged a trial-court order requiring the employer to provide a second panel of four physicians from which the employee could choose a pain-management specialist, see generally ยง 25- 5-77(a), Ala. Code 1975); and Ex parte Wal-Mart Stores (addressing an employer's petition for a writ of mandamus in which the employer objected to a specific surgery not recommended by the employee's current authorized treating physician). Those cases, too, are therefore distinguishable from the present case.
In light of the foregoing, mandamus is not available to Wix as a mechanism for obtaining relief from the circuit court's October 2004 judgment. We note, however, that Wix's petition was filed within the 42-day time period allowed for filing a notice of appeal from the circuit court's October 2004 judgment. We therefore elect to treat Wix's petition as an appeal of that judgment, and we now proceed to consider the merits of the arguments made by the parties in their briefs to this court.
In entering its October 19, 2004, judgment, the circuit court relied upon documentary evidence submitted by the parties; no live testimony was received by the court at the hearing on Davis's petition for medical relief. Accordingly, the deference normally accorded to a trial court's findings of fact based upon the receipt of evidence ore tenus is not applicable here. Instead, this court must conduct a de novo review as to both the circuit court's findings of fact and its conclusions of law. Lepeska Leasing Corp. v. State Dep't of Revenue, 395 So. 2d 82, 83 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980). See Alabama Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So. 2d 337, 342 (Ala. 2004).
The outcome of this appeal is governed by the parties' settlement agreement, which provides, in part:
"In regards to medical treatment for the heart, the plaintiff agrees that he will continue to seek medical treatment from his health insurance carrier and shall submit all claims for the heart condition as long as he has health insurance. Upon termination of any health insurance where the plaintiff is no longer insured, he will then be able to seek medical treatment in regards to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|