Elbert Greeson Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Ivey
| Decision Date | 27 February 1985 |
| Citation | 472 So.2d 1049 |
| Parties | ELBERT GREESON HOSIERY MILLS, INC. v. Delores IVEY. Civ. 4542. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Jack W. Torbert, Jr. of Torbert and Torbert, Gadsden, for appellant.
Terry Gillis of Kellett & Gillis, Fort Payne, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case.
On June 28, 1982, Delores Ivey injured her knee while working at Elbert Greeson Hosiery Mill, Inc. She was examined by a specialist, who diagnosed her as having reflex sympathetic dystrophy. This is a condition described as originating from a simple blow to the knee. A disturbance in the nervous system is caused by the blow and the affected area goes through several stages of soreness and swelling. Ms. Ivey's condition is described as having swelling and a bluish discoloration around the knee cap with pain out of proportion to the apparent injury. This symptom is called "chronic pain syndrome." The condition is also accompanied by stiffness of the joint. The treatment of this condition is described in three stages. The first line of treatment is physical therapy followed by the second line, an anesthetic block of the nerves to the knee to see if the pain is relieved. If the block is successful, the third stage of treatment is surgery to permanently cut the nerves to the knee. Ms. Ivey refused the second and third stages of treatment. The reason for her refusal is at issue in this case.
Following her refusal, the employer's insurance company sent a letter to counsel for Ms. Ivey, demanding that she submit to the sympathetic block and surgery. After this demand letter, the insurance company stopped paying Ms. Ivey compensation.
On August 29, 1983, Ms. Ivey filed suit, seeking an award for permanent and total disability benefits. The employer filed a general denial and asserted that the employee, Ms. Ivey, unreasonably refused medical treatment. On June 1, 1984, the DeKalb County Circuit Court entered a judgment for Ms. Ivey, and the employer appeals.
In workmen's compensation cases our review of factual matters is limited to an examination of the evidence presented at trial to determine if there was any legal evidence to support the trial court's findings. Lankford v. International Paper Co., 454 So.2d 988 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Battles v. Thomas R. Foster Pulpwood Co., 444 So.2d 876 (Ala.Civ.App.1984).
The law applicable to refusing medical treatment in a workmen's compensation case is found in § 25-5-77, Code of Alabama 1975. This section has been interpreted to mean that for an employee to be deprived of future benefits because of his refusal to submit to proposed medical treatment, there must be some reasonable expectation that the employee's condition will improve as a result. The treatment required must also be reasonably danger-free. The employee's subjective fear of surgery, alone, is not a reasonable basis for refusal of such an operation. Scott v. Alabama Machinery and Supply Co., 52 Ala.App. 459, 294 So.2d 160 (1974).
The employer presents as issues on appeal that the trial court erred in its determination that Ms. Ivey was permanently and totally disabled and that her refusal to submit to surgical treatment was reasonable. The employer bases these issues on the contention that the only evidence supporting the employee's case is not legal evidence.
During the trial, Ms. Ivey's attorney asked her what the doctor had told her about the proposed surgical treatment. Counsel for the employer objected to this testimony on the specific grounds of hearsay. However, the trial court admitted the controversial testimony for the limited purpose of showing why she refused the proposed medical treatment, and not to establish the truth thereof. By doing so, the trial court did not commit error. See, C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 273.02 (3rd ed. 1977).
Ms. Ivey testified that the doctor told her that because of her "age and the circumstances" that he could not do the surgery. Ms. Ivey's ex-husband also testified over objection as to what the doctor said. He said the doctor never recommended surgery and at one point stated that her condition had progressed too far for him to do surgery. He also testified that the doctor said there was no guarantee of success in the surgery; there was a possibility of paralysis; that the pain could possibly reoccur; and that such surgery would not help mobility. Mr. Ivey also stated that his ex-wife was not afraid of surgery in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Eastwood Foods, Inc.
...the findings of the trial court. Associated Forest Materials v. Keller, 537 So.2d 957 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Elbert Greeson Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Ivey, 472 So.2d 1049 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); United Service Insurance Co. v. Donaldson, 254 Ala. 204, 48 So.2d 3 (1950); Gadsden Iron Works, Inc. v. Be......
-
Ex parte Alabama Power Co.
...v. Henry, 600 So.2d 324 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Avondale Mills v. Tollison, 52 Ala.App. 52, 289 So.2d 621 (1974); Elbert Greeson Hosiery v. Ivey, 472 So.2d 1049 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Gulf States Steel Co. v. Cross, 214 Ala. 155, 106 So. 870 ...
-
Allied Chemical Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of Illinois
...470 So.2d 821; Guilmette v. Humble Oil & Refinery Co. (1975) 114 R.I. 508, 336 A.2d 553; Contra Elbert Greeson Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Ivey (1985), Ala.Civ.App., 472 So.2d 1049.) We do not believe that the claimant must in each instance proffer specific evidence indicating that some adverse ......
-
Equipment Sales Corp. v. Gwin, 2060986.
...by the facts.'" Farris v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 624 So.2d 183, 185 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (quoting Elbert Greeson Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Ivey, 472 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Ala.Civ.App.1985)). "[T]he trial court has a duty to make a finding on each issue presented and litigated before it. In instances w......