Cason v. Miller (Ex parte Rock Wool Mfg. Co.)

• Decision Date: 18 March 2016
• Docket Number: 1141252.
• Citation: 202 So.3d 669
• Parties: Ex parte ROCK WOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY. (In re Palmer CASON and Jessie M. Cason v. Gerald W. Miller et al.).
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

202 So.3d 669

Ex parte ROCK WOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY.(In re Palmer CASON and Jessie M. Cason

v.Gerald W. Miller et al.).

1141252.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 18, 2016.

Michael I. Fish, Mary Stewart Nelson, and Charley M. Drummond of Fish Nelson & Holden, LLC, Birmingham, for petitioner.

H. Gregory Harp of Harp Law, LLC, Trussville; and Moses O. Stone, Birmingham, for respondents.

PARKER, Justice.

Rock Wool Manufacturing Company (“Rock Wool”) petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Jefferson Circuit Court (“the circuit court”) to vacate its order denying Rock Wool's motions to dismiss a complaint filed against it by Palmer Cason and Jessie M. Cason and to enter a new order dismissing the Casons' complaint. We grant the petition and issue the writ.

Facts and Procedural History

At all times relevant to this matter, Palmer Cason (“Palmer”) was an employee of Rock Wool. On July 16, 2014, Palmer was working as a furnace operator for Rock Wool when he suffered an injury caused by a furnace explosion. At some point before the explosion, Rock Wool had caused certain safety equipment called “explosion doors” to be removed from the furnace Palmer was operating. The “explosion doors” had the capacity at least to mitigate injury to the operator in the event of an explosion.

On October 22, 2014, the Casons sued several of Palmer's coworkers, alleging various claims in regard to the injuries Palmer suffered as a result of the furnace explosion. On January 27, 2015, the Casons filed an amended complaint adding Rock Wool as a defendant and asserting claims of wantonness, the tort of outrage, and negligence against Rock Wool.

On February 27, 2015, Rock Wool filed a motion to dismiss the Casons' amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In that motion, Rock Wool argued that the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, § 25–5–1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, provides the exclusive remedy for employees who are injured during the course of their employment. Specifically, Rock Wool argued that §§ 25–5–52 and –53, Ala.Code 1975, which are commonly referred to as the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, prevented the Casons from being able to recover against Rock Wool in tort for the injuries Palmer incurred during the course of his employment with Rock Wool. The exclusive-remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act provide, in relevant part:

“Except as provided in this chapter, no employee of any employer subject to this chapter ... shall have a right to any other method, form, or amount of compensation or damages for an injury or death occasioned by an accident or occupational disease proximately resulting from and while engaged in the actual performance of the duties of his or her employment and from a cause originating in such employment or determination thereof.”

§ 25–5–52.

“The rights and remedies granted in this chapter to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee ... at common law, by statute, or otherwise on account of injury, loss of services, or death. Except as provided in this chapter, no employer shall be held civilly liable for personal injury to or death of the employer's employee, for purposes of this chapter, whose injury or death is due to an accident or to an occupational disease while engaged in the service or business of the employer, the cause of which accident or occupational disease originates in the employment....”

§ 25–5–53. Further, § 25–5–14, Ala.Code 1975, provides:

“The intent of the Legislature is to provide complete immunity to employers and limited immunity to officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees of the same employer ... from civil liability for all causes of action except those based on willful conduct and such immunity is an essential aspect of the workers' compensation scheme. The Legislature hereby expressly reaffirms its intent, as set forth in Section 25–5–53, as amended herein, and Sections 25–5–144 and 25–5–194, regarding the exclusivity of the rights and remedies of an injured employee, except as provided for herein.”

On May 1, 2015, the Casons filed a second amended complaint asserting a claim against Rock Wool under the Alabama Employer's Liability Act, § 25–6–1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. On June 2, 2015, Rock Wool filed a motion to dismiss the Casons' second amended complaint. Rock Wool's arguments largely mirrored those in its first motion to dismiss, with the additional argument that there could be no recovery under the Employer's Liability Act in a case where the alleged injury is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. The Casons filed a response to this motion on July 23, 2015. On July 24, 2015, the circuit court held a hearing on Rock Wool's motions to dismiss. On July 29, 2015, the circuit court entered an order denying Rock Wool's motions to dismiss. This petition for mandamus relief followed.

Standard of Review

“ ‘ “ ‘The writ of mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be “issued only when there is: 1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.” Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 503 (Ala.1993) ; see also Ex parte Ziglar, 669 So.2d 133, 134 (Ala.1995).’ Ex parte Carter, [807 So.2d 534,] 536 [ (Ala.2001) ].”

“ ‘Ex parte McWilliams, 812 So.2d 318, 321 (Ala.2001).

“ ‘ “Subject to certain narrow exceptions ..., we have held that, because an ‘adequate remedy’ exists by way of an appeal, the denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for a summary judgment is not reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus.” Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 825 So.2d 758, 761–62 (Ala.2002).'

“Ex parte Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., 78 So.3d 959, 965–66 (Ala.2011).”

Ex parte MERSCORP, Inc., 141 So.3d 984, 990 (Ala.2013). One of the exceptions to the general rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss is not reviewable by mandamus is where the motion to dismiss asserts a defense of immunity. See Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928, 931 n. 2 (Ala.2003) (“The denial of a motion to dismiss ... generally is not reviewable by a petition for writ of mandamus, subject to certain narrow exceptions, such as the issue of immunity.” (citing Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 825 So.2d 758, 761–62 (Ala.2002) )). See also Ex parte McCartney Constr. Co., 720 So.2d 910, 911 (Ala.1998) (granting mandamus relief where the trial court denied a motion to dismiss premised on the immunity provided by the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act); Ex parte Progress Rail Servs. Corp., 869 So.2d 459, 473 (Ala.2003) (ruling “consistent with McCartney ”); and Ex parte Salvation Army, 72 So.3d 1224, 1228 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (holding that denial of a summary judgment motion grounded on a claim of immunity under the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act is reviewable by mandamus and stating that “whether a claim of immunity is denied following a motion to dismiss or a summary-judgment motion appears to be immaterial to ... whether such a denial may be reviewed by mandamus”).

In its motions to dismiss, Rock Wool cited Progress Rail and argued that it was immune from the Casons' action based on the exclusive-remedy provisions set forth in the Workers' Compensation Act. Therefore, Rock Wool, having asserted a defense of immunity, has properly petitioned this Court for mandamus review of the circuit court's denial of Rock Wool's motions to dismiss.

Discussion

Rock Wool argues that all of the Casons' claims are barred, in one way or another, by the Workers' Compensation Act. First, Rock Wool argues that the Casons' Employer's Liability Act claim is barred because, it says, the claim does not fall within an exception to coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act. Second, Rock Wool argues that the Casons' tort claims are barred by the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. Therefore, Rock Wool argues, the circuit court exceeded its discretion in denying Rock Wool's motions to dismiss.

Rock Wool argues that the Casons' claim against it premised on the Employer's Liability Act is barred because the Workers' Compensation Act is presumed to apply in this situation and the Employer's Liability Act and the Workers' Compensation Act are mutually exclusive. The Casons' only argument in response is that their claim is proper under the Employer's Liability Act because they allege intentional tortious conduct on the part of Rock Wool. The Casons do not in any way address Rock Wool's argument that the Workers' Compensation Act and the Employer's Liability Act are mutually exclusive, nor do they address the following holding of this Court in Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 7320 v. Sheffield, 398 So.2d 262, 263 (Ala.1981) :

“Suits brought by an employee against her employer for injuries sustained in the course of her employment are presumed to fall within the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. Pound v. Gaulding, 237 Ala. 387, 187 So. 468 (1939) ; Kaplan v. Sertell, 217 Ala. 413, 116 So. 112 (1928). Because the Workers' Compensation Act and the Employer's Liability Act are mutually exclusive and cannot apply to the same set of facts, Jackson v. United Cigar Stores Co., 228 Ala. 220, 153 So. 422 (1934), an employee who seeks to recover damages from her employer under the Employer's Liability Act must bring herself within an exception to the Workers' Compensation Act by alleging in her complaint facts sufficient to establish that exception. Johnson v. Ralls, 286 Ala. 565, 243 So.2d 673 (1971) ; Stanton v. Marsh, 274 Ala. 501, 150 So.2d 363 (1963) ; DeArman v. Ingalls Iron Works, 258 Ala. 205, 61 So.2d 764 (1952). Once the plaintiff establishes an exception to the Workers' Compensation Act by alleging sufficient facts, the burden shifts to the

...