Elmore County v. Hornsby
| Decision Date | 25 May 1988 |
| Parties | ELMORE COUNTY and Elmore County Commission v. Billy R. HORNSBY. Civ. 6308. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Dan E. Schmaeling of Wood & Parnell, Montgomery, for appellant.
James R. Bowles of Bowles & Cottle, Tallassee, for appellee.
This action began when Billy R. Hornsby (employee) filed a workmen's compensation claim against Elmore County and Elmore County Commission (employer). The employee claimed that he developed an occupational disease out of, and in the course of, his employment. After a hearing, the trial court found that the employee was totally and permanently disabled and was entitled to receive workmen's compensation benefits and medical expenses. The employer appeals.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether there was any evidence establishing that prolonged sitting is a hazard in excess of those ordinarily incident to employment in general or peculiar to the occupation of a deputy sheriff.
The facts, in part, are as follows: The employee worked for the Elmore County sheriff's department for approximately 14 years. His basic duties were enforcing the law, serving civil papers, transporting mental patients, and engaging in arrest procedures, all of which involve, in some part, driving a patrol car.
The medical testimony indicates that the employee suffers from advanced arteriosclerotic peripheral vascular disease, more commonly known as hardening of the arteries. As a result of this disease, grafts were surgically placed in the employee's legs to resolve his initial problem of decreased circulation and narrowing of the arteries.
We would note that it is undisputed that the employee's hardening of the arteries was not caused by his job as a deputy sheriff. Further, the testimony indicates that sitting does not worsen this disease. What the employee contends, however, is that the prolonged sitting required by his job caused him to develop clots and occlusions in the grafts in his leg, and he is therefore entitled to compensation. We disagree.
Section 25-5-110, Ala. Code 1975, as set out below, sets out the requirements for recovery based on an occupational disease:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zeanah v. Stewart Animal Clinic, PC
...that bank teller's repeated kneeling and squatting was not an occupational hazard peculiar to teller's employment); Elmore County v. Hornsby, 533 So.2d 620 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (holding that ailment brought about by deputy sheriff's prolonged sitting did not meet the requirements of an occupa......
-
Bruno's, Inc. v. Lawson
...to employment in general and (2) different in character from those found in the general run of occupations." Elmore County v. Hornsby, 533 So.2d 620, 622 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). This court has previously held that prolonged sitting in a patrol car as is required of a deputy sheriff does not fal......
-
Owsley v. Winston Furniture Co.
...incident to employment in general and different in character from those found in the general run of occupations. Elmore County v. Hornsby, 533 So.2d 620 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). See §§ 25-5-110(1) and -141, Ala.Code This court recognizes that the workers' compensation laws should be liberally co......
-
Smith v. Colonial Bank
...to employment in general, and (2) different in character from those found in the general run of occupations. Elmore County v. Hornsby, 533 So.2d 620 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) ; Young v. City of Huntsville, 342 So.2d 918 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). Stated differently, the disease must be contracted from or......