Bryant v. Flagstar Enterprises, Inc.
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
| Citation | 717 So.2d 400 |
| Parties | Donna BRYANT v. FLAGSTAR ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Hardee's; and GAB Robins North America, Inc. 2961388. |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1998 |
Page 400
v.
FLAGSTAR ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Hardee's; and GAB Robins North America, Inc.
Page 401
Melvin W. Brunson, Mobile, for appellant.
Anthony N. Fox and Freddie N. Harrington of Clark & Scott, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.
Donna Bryant appeals from a judgment of the Baldwin County Circuit Court that, among other things, denied temporary total disability workers' compensation benefits to her. Because the appeal is not taken from a "final judgment," see § 12-22-2, Ala.Code 1975, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Bryant filed her complaint seeking workers' compensation benefits in May 1995, naming "Hardee's Food Systems" as the sole defendant. Two months later, Bryant amended her complaint to name Flagstar Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Hardee's (hereinafter "Hardee's") as a defendant; she also added a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the alleged outrageous conduct of Hardee's in denying temporary total disability benefits. Hardee's filed an answer, stating, among other things, that Bryant should not recover benefits because her claimed injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. Hardee's then filed a motion for a summary judgment on Bryant's outrage claim, which was denied. Later, Bryant amended her complaint to add GAB Robins North America, Inc. ("GAB"), Hardee's workers' compensation insurance carrier, as a defendant as to her outrage claim.
Hardee's then moved to "bifurcate" the trial of Bryant's workers' compensation claim and her outrage claim. The trial court entered an order granting the motion to "bifurcate," setting one date for the hearing of the workers' compensation claim and a later date for the hearing of the outrage claim.
After an ore tenus proceeding concerning Bryant's workers' compensation claim, the trial court entered an order in favor of Hardee's as to this claim, concluding that she "ha[d] not proven that her medical condition either arose out of her employment or that [her] medical condition was suffered while in the line and scope of her employment with [Hardee's]" and that "no legal and/or medical causation was presented to substantiate the claim of [Bryant]." The trial court denied a "motion to reconsider" 1 this order. Bryant appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal on motion of the appellant. Bryant v. Flagstar Enters., Inc., 705 So.2d 890 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (table).
After the trial court had entered its order in favor of Hardee's on the workers' compensation claim, GAB moved for a summary judgment on the outrage claim; Hardee's also moved for a summary judgment as to that claim. On August 5, 1997, the trial court entered the following order:
"After...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkinson v. Cochran, 2180741
...of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu.’ Nunn v. Baker, 518 So. 2d 711, 712 (Ala. 1987)." Bryant v. Flagstar Enters., Inc., 717 So. 2d 400, 401 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). The trial court stated in its May 19, 2017, order dismissing the action in part that Wilkinson had been disciplined......
-
Marler v. Lambrianakos, 2170483
...is jurisdictional, and, therefore, that issue may be addressed by an appellate court ex mero motu. Bryant v. Flagstar Enters., Inc., 717 So.2d 400, 401 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) ; see also Perry v. Perry, 92 So.3d 799, 801 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (the failure to rule on a contempt claim rendered ......
-
Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Human Res. v. S.W., 2190186
...we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction over the appeals of the November 26, 2019, orders. Bryant v. Flagstar Enters., Inc., 717 So. 2d 400, 402 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). Although the parties have not raised the jurisdiction of this court as an issue on appeal, "'jurisdictional ma......
-
Gilbreath v. Harbour, 2071242.
...the separate claims under Rule 42, Ala. R. Civ. P., thus maintaining the claims in the same action. See Bryant v. Flagstar Enters., Inc., 717 So.2d 400, 402 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (explaining the difference between ordering separate trials and severing claims in an action, including the necessi......