NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
On October 4, 2019 Alabama Court of Civil Appeals released its opinion in AMEC Foster Wheeler Camtech, Inc. v. Jimmy Chandler wherein it upheld the Trial Court’s finding that the employee suffered from a vocational disability as a result of his on the job back injury.
The evidence at trial was that the employee was working on or about November 16, 2015 when he felt pain in his back while lifting a pipe. This job, according to the plaintiff, involved welding and being able to get into awkward positions and perform precision welding. The employee was ultimately diagnosed with a protrusion at C5-6, a protrusion at T7-8, and a protrusion at L4-5, along with degenerative changes in the spine. The plaintiff was given lifting restrictions and his authorized treating physician performed conservative measures including epidural injections. After missing several appointments the plaintiff was placed at MMI on or around June 14, 2016. The employer had placed the employee at light duty and the employee left his employment with AMEC on January 11, 2016. At that time he was not receiving any benefits because light duty was being provided. The plaintiff did go back to treat with the authorized treating physician at a subsequent date and the doctor noted that he had improved significantly and should only need additional treatment once or twice a year. Note the employee did work with other employers on and off after his employment with AMEC. However, at the time of the trial he was not working. These jobs included working as a supervisor of other welders that would inspect welds but did no perform welding himself mostly. There was some work that he had do a little bit of mechanic work but again it was mostly supervising. The employee testified that it was nothing like the precision and specialty welding that he had to perform that involved getting in unusual positions with AMEC.
The employer appealed the decision asserting that the return to work provision should have applied because the employee had returned to work for another employer earning the same or greater wages. The Trial Court ruled that the return to work statute did not apply because the employee was no longer working at the time of the initial disability determination by the Court and, therefore, had not returned to work as that term was used in the return to work statute. The Court of Appeals went on to point out that for the purposes of this argument they did not really have to address it because the employer did not argue and/or calculate correctly the employee’s average weekly wage with the other employers so it can accurately be compared to his wages with AMEC. The Court noted that the employment with the other employers was on and off and in order to determine the average weekly wage the employer on appeal had to secure the gross wages from the other employers and then divide that by the number of weeks worked. The Court of Appeals pointed out that AMEC was required to do this and it was not the Court’s job to make that calculation for them in order to determine if the employee was earning the same or greater wages. Therefore, the Court of Appeals ruled that AMEC failed to demonstrate the employee actually return to work making a higher average weekly wage and thus could not find the Trial Court in error.
AMEC also argued that the employee admitted that after long hours that his back felt worse and, therefore, that the last injurious exposure rule should apply which would preclude the employee from receiving workers’ compensation benefits from AMEC. The Court of Appeals stated that the employee’s testimony that pain worsened by his subsequent employment activities supported the conclusion that the employee suffered a recurrence of the symptoms of his injury and not that he suffered a secondary injury to his back that contributed independently to the final disability. As a result, the last injurious exposure rule would not apply because there was a recurrence, as opposed to a new injury.
AMEC also appealed arguing that the MMI date asserted by the Trial Court was not supported by the evidence. The Court of Appeals noted that the Trial Court is not bound by a physician’s determination of an MMI date. The Trial Court stated that MMI is the date in which the claimant reaches a plateau and there is no further medical care or treatment that could be anticipated to lessen the employee’s disability. The Court noted that Dr. West testified at his deposition that he had improved since June of 2016 and in February of 2018 he had reached a point where he would only have to have epidural injections a couple of times a week. Therefore, the Court of Appeals stated that the Trial Court’s conclusion that MMI was reached on February 2, 2018 was supported by the evidence.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
This blog submission was prepared by Josh Holden, an attorney with Fish, Nelson, and Holden, LLC a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers, and third party administrators and all matters related to Worker’s Compensation. Fish, Nelson and Holden is a member of the National Worker’s Compensation Defense Network. If you have any questions about this submission or Alabama Worker’s Compensation in general, please contact Holden by emailing him at firstname.lastname@example.org or calling him directly at (205) 332.1428.