Carroll Const. Co., Inc. v. Hutcheson

Decision Date15 June 1977
Citation347 So.2d 527
PartiesCARROLL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. A. D. HUTCHESON. Civ. 1126.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Abner R. Powell, Jr., of Powell & Sikes, Andalusia, for appellant.

W. Sidney Fuller of Tipler & Fuller, Andalusia, for appellee.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case. On January 20, 1976, plaintiff A. D. Hutcheson filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits arising from an injury occurring on October 28, 1974. Defendant Carroll answered with admissions that Hutcheson had been its employee at the time of the injury, that it had received notice of the injury, that it had paid medical expenses and substantial amounts of workmen's compensation benefits; but it denied liability for further compensation benefits and denied Hutcheson was totally and permanently disabled.

The case proceeded to trial before the court sitting without a jury. The court found Hutcheson, a 56-year-old man, had been injured in the line and scope of his employment, that Carroll had paid $75 per week as workmen's compensation for 48 weeks and also $5,095.01 as medical expenses, that Hutcheson had unpaid doctor bills of $30.60 and unpaid drug bills of $86.29 for which Carroll was liable, that Hutcheson was suffering from total and permanent disability and was entitled to further compensation at $75 per week for the 54 weeks since the last payment ($4,050) and an additional 448 weeks "unless compensation for the full 550 weeks exceeds the total amount allowed by statute at the time of plaintiff's injury." On November 8, 1976, the court entered judgment in accordance with those findings. Its motion for new trial being denied, Carroll appealed.

The parties stipulated that Hutcheson's average weekly wages at the time of the accident were $280, that under the workmen's compensation laws of Alabama he would be entitled to the maximum benefit of $75 per week, and that Carroll's insurer had paid Hutcheson $75 for 48 weeks along with all medical bills received in connection with the accident ($5,095.01).

The evidence tended to show the following: Hutcheson was 56 years old and had been employed by Carroll as a carpenter for two months on work at a Gantt steam plant when injured on October 28, 1975. While helping others put in a cement pipe, Hutcheson was hit under the shoulder blades by a backhoe, knocked several feet forward into an eight-foot ditch where he landed on the cement pipe, rock and mud. He was taken immediately to a doctor who prescribed medication. Hutcheson returned to the job the same day and continued to work for about a month. He stated he worked in much pain in order to assist a new carpenter complete work he had begun prior to his injury. During this period of work, Hutcheson complained of soreness and fell several times. In November he entered a Pensacola hospital for treatment of an ulcer which he had had since 1951. The ulcer had been inactive since 1964 but was reactivated by indocin, a medicine prescribed for pain after the October injury. At the same time Hutcheson was found to be suffering from a mild case of hypertension, mild chemical diabetes, and to have degenerative arthritis of the left knee. (In February of 1974 when Hutcheson had a hemorrhoidectomy, X-rays had revealed degenerative osteoarthritis of the cervical vertebra; medication, traction of the neck and physical therapy had been prescribed and applied.) In January of 1975 X-rays revealed degenerative arthritis in the right knee, which his orthopedist stated was not connected with the October accident. An arthrotomy was performed on the right knee. Floating pieces of cartilage were removed. Hutcheson had suffered a hairline fracture of the left knee in a 1967 fall at a construction site and had been involved in an auto accident around 1969 without any known injuries. Since February of 1974 his left hand has been numb and since the accident he has been unable to grasp and hold tools with his right hand. He has a ninth grade education. He has not been trained for any work other than that of carpenter. At one time he farmed but does not have enough money to do so now.

The orthopedist assessed his disability as 10% permanent partial to the neck as a result of the accident aggravating the existing arthritis, 10% permanent partial of the right knee, or 5% disability to the body as a whole. He admitted it would be difficult for Hutcheson to climb and squat with such a condition but did not take the type of employment into consideration in fixing the amount of disability. Another physician declined to state a percentage of disability but did feel Hutcheson could supervise or do some carpentry work but could not do any climbing. Several carpenters, construction workers and neighbors of Hutcheson testified that he was physically unable to do the work of a carpenter because of the need to kneel, stoop and climb in that occupation.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in requiring it to pay the unpaid medical and drug bills in the absence of proof that they were reasonable. The record reveals that these bills were never introduced into evidence. They were only mentioned by appellee's attorney when he sought to have the amount stipulated. Appellant denied liability and appellee's attorney then stated he was going to show what they were for, but he never did. Where there is no evidence that a medical charge is reasonable, there is no basis for awarding judgment on the charge because it is not a matter of common knowledge. Mitchell Motor Co. v. Burrow, 37 Ala.App. 222, 66 So.2d 198 (1953); Tit. 26, § 293, Code of Alabama (1940) (Recomp.1958) (Supp.1973). But appellant did not allege this as error in the motion for new trial. This error cannot come under the ground alleging excessive compensation because payments by the employer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • City of Guntersville v. Bishop
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • May 2, 1997
    ...Fruehauf Corp. v. Prater, 360 So.2d 999 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1003 (Ala.1978); Carroll Constr. Co. v. Hutcheson, 347 So.2d 527 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). Our research has not disclosed any Alabama case law considering the reasonable necessity of items that are not "purely" H......
  • Mead Paper Co. v. Brizendine
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • September 19, 1990
    ...City of Muscle Shoals v. Davis, 406 So.2d 919 (Ala.Civ.App.), writ denied, 406 So.2d 923 (Ala.1981); Carroll Constr. Co. v. Hutcheson, 347 So.2d 527 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). The question of whether an employee can return to his former trade is basically a threshold issue; if the employee can res......
  • Allen v. Metro Contract Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • October 27, 1982
    ...ability, were factors allowed in determining and supporting a finding of total and permanent disability; Carroll Construction Co. v. Hutcheson, 347 So.2d 527 (Ala.Civ.App.1977), holding factors such as age, skills and education would support a finding of total disability where medical evide......
  • Russell Coal Co. v. Williams
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • August 9, 1989
    ...charge in a workmen's compensation case. Reasonableness of such charges is not a matter of common knowledge. Carroll Construction Co. v. Hutcheson, 347 So.2d 527 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). No evidence whatsoever was presented in this case about Williams's existing and unpaid medical expenses. That......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Trott v. Brinks and reimbursement: why Alabama's third-party statute should be amended.
    • United States
    • Jones Law Review Vol. 12 No. 1, September 2007
    • September 22, 2007
    ...739 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979) (holding that medical payments by the employer are not compensation); Carroll Const. Co., Inc. v. Hutcheson, 347 So. 2d 527, 530 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977) (holding that payments for medical treatment are not considered (20) ISHITA SENGUPTA ET AL., WORKERS' COMPENSATION......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT