Benefield v. Goodwill Industries of Mobile
| Decision Date | 27 February 1985 |
| Parties | Henry A. BENEFIELD v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF MOBILE. Civ. 4414. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Richard M. Crump of Hess, Atchison & Horne, Mobile, for appellant.
Douglas L. Brown and Edward A. Dean of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case.
The trial court determined that the employee was not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits. The employee, through able counsel, appeals and we affirm.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether there is any evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the employee was not entitled to benefits. In addition to this primary issue, the employee also contends that the trial court's findings of fact are insufficient.
Review by this court of workmen's compensation cases is by certiorari. Ala.Code (1975), § 25-5-81(d). The review in such cases "is limited to questions of law and to an examination of the evidence to determine if there is any legal evidence to support the findings of the trial court." Armstrong v. Lewis & Associates Construction Co., 451 So.2d 332, 334 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). The cases are legion that, under this narrow standard of review, if there is any legal evidence which supports the trial court's findings of fact, this court will affirm those findings. Wilson v. Berry Industries Company, 451 So.2d 339 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Alatex, Inc. v. Couch, 449 So.2d 1254 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Saxon v. City of Mobile, 421 So.2d 1295 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). With this standard of review in mind, we find that there is evidence to support the trial judge's findings of fact.
The employee contends that the evidence supports his claim that the injury to his toe was incurred in the course of his employment when he stepped on a sharp object or was bitten by ants, triggering a pre-existing bone disease. The disease could not be successfully treated, and the front third of the employee's foot had to be amputated. While the record may contain evidence which supports the employee's argument, we find that there is also evidence to the contrary. Specifically, one of the physicians treating the employee's foot testified that the pre-existing, but dormant, bone disease in the employee's toe could have been activated, not by stepping on a sharp object or by ant bites, as the employee claimed, but by the everyday nonemployment-related trauma of "braking" one's walking and of friction inside one's shoe.
We further note that the employee himself gave varying versions of how he was "injured."
We reiterate that, on review of a workmen's compensation case, we do not determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the judgment of the trial court. Rather, if there is any evidence supporting the findings of fact, we must affirm the trial court as to those factual matters. Wilson v. Berry Industries Company, 451 So.2d at 342. We find that there was such supporting evidence in this case.
Ala.Code (1975), § 25-5-88, provides that the judgment entered by the trial judge in a workmen's compensation case "shall contain a statement of the law and facts and conclusions as determined by said judge." The employee contends that the judgment entered by the trial judge did not meet the requirements of § 25-5-88 because certain of the findings of fact were not responsive to the issues presented to the trial court.
Wh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobile County v. Benson
...judge." It is well established that substantial compliance with § 25-5-88 is sufficient. Hinote, 498 So.2d 848; Benefield v. Goodwill Industries, 473 So.2d 505 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Moreover, where the trial court's findings are meager or omissive, this court may simply refer to the record it......
-
Wilson v. William Wilson Co., Inc.
...compliance with the section is sufficient. Bradley v. Nelson, 507 So.2d 958 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); Benefield v. Goodwill Industries of Mobile, 473 So.2d 505 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). The employee argues that the judgment must expressly state the relevant provisions of the workmen's compensation act ......
-
Lowe v. Walters
...(Ala.Civ.App.1984)." Padgett v. International Paper Co., 470 So.2d 1287, 1288 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). See also Benefield v. Goodwill Industries of Mobile, 473 So.2d 505 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). If there is any legal evidence that supports the findings of the trial court, this court will affirm those......
-
American Auto. Ins. Co. of Missouri v. Hinote
...compliance with § 25-5-88 is sufficient. Littleton v. Gold Kist, Inc., 480 So.2d 1236 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Benefield v. Goodwill Industries of Mobile, 473 So.2d 505 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Certainly, the trial court's three-page judgment in this case substantially complies with § 25-5-88. The tr......