The employee sued the employer for workers’ compensation benefits arising out of this incident involving changing out knives in a mulching machine.
Summary of the employee’s testimony: On December 17, 2009, the employee clocked in for work at 4:28 a.m. He was assigned the task of changing the knives in a mulching machine. After carrying a 50-pound box of knives up a flight of stairs, he started back down the stairs to retrieve a second box and felt a “pinch” in his back. After removing an 80-pound screen from the mulching machine, he began to walk down the stairs while carrying the screen. He felt a second “pinch,” which caused him to drop the screen. After resting 15 minutes, he changed out about half of the knives in the mulching machine and then felt a third “pinch.”
At this point, he ceased working, sought out his supervisor, informed the supervisor that he had been injured while changing out the knives and needed medical care. The supervisor told him to go to the doctor and keep him informed of his progress. The supervisor indicated that he would take care of the employee’s time card since the employee could not walk up the steps.
At approximately 8 a.m., the employee’s wife picked up the employee and took him to an medical facility that the employer had designated as its primary-care provider for work-related injuries. The employee maintained he didn’t know that fact when he selected the facility, but did not have a personal doctor at the time.
Summary of a coworker’s testimony: The coworker worked 15 feet away from where the employee was working, did not see the employee get a box of knives, and did not hear the employee express that he was injured or in pain. He testified that the employee indicated he didn’t want to change out the knives because the employee normally worked as a crane operator. The employee didn’t have to retrieve a box of knives because the knives in the machine only needed to be “flipped.” The employee simply stopped working and walked away from the job, past the coworker. Finally, the coworker testified that he “flipped” the knives and didn’t see any boxes of knives close to the machine as he completed the task.
Summary of the supervisor’s testimony: The employee did not tell him that the employee was injured on the job, but rather that he was going to see the doctor because his back had been bothering him. The supervisor testified that he didn’t inquire of the employee how the employee had injured his back, but did testify that if the employee had told him it was a work-related injury, the supervisor would have involved human resources in making a doctor’s appointment and would have completed a first report of injury.
The court also considered medical records in the case, but none of the medical records indicated that the employee had been injured at work until an orthopedic surgeon became involved in the treatment of the employee in 2010.
On December 23, 2009, the employee was called into work and the employer completed a first report of injury. This report indicated that the employee said the injury was related to a work-related injury in 2004 or 2005 and that the injury had been aggravated on December 17. At this meeting, the employer agreed to refer the employee to the employer’s primary-care provider for work-related injuries.
On January 7, 2010, the employee was told that his claim had been denied by the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier. The employer also gave the employee a written reprimand for failing to promptly notify the employer of the work-related injury on December 17.
The Lee County Circuit Court found that the injury was work related; but on appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the circuit court. In its discussion of the case, the appeals court explained the following:
An appeals court will not reverse a circuit court in cases like this one unless there is a lack of substantial evidence for the court’s findings. Substantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved. In this case, the appeals court found that a review of the totality of the evidence made the link between work and the injury so implausible that causation could not be inferred. See West Fraser, Inc. v. Caldwell, decided on January 13, 2012.
Items on this web page are general in nature. They cannot—and should not—replace consultation with a competent legal professional. Nothing on this web page should be considered rendering legal advice.
Return to top.
Return to Legal Developments.
Workers Compensation Attorneys.
