Ex parte City of Guntersville
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | MADDOX, Justice. |
| Citation | 728 So.2d 611 |
| Parties | Ex parte CITY OF GUNTERSVILLE and the Municipal Workers' Compensation Fund, Inc. (Re City of Guntersville and the Municipal Workers' Compensation Fund, Inc. v. Maylond T. Bishop). |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1998 |
728 So.2d 611
Ex parte CITY OF GUNTERSVILLE and the Municipal Workers' Compensation Fund, Inc.(Re City of Guntersville and the Municipal Workers' Compensation Fund, Inc. v. Maylond T. Bishop)
1961595.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 22, 1998.
Robert W. Lee, Jr., and Ashley P. Norton of Robert W. Lee & Associates, P.C., Birmingham; and Wayne Wolfe of Wolfe, Jones & Boswell, Huntsvillle, for respondent.
John J. Coleman III, Gregory C. Cook, and Tom S. Roper of Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Fund.
Rhonda Pitts Chambers of Rives & Peterson, P.C., Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Council of Association Workers Compensation Self Insurers Funds.
MADDOX, Justice.
The central issue presented in this case is whether § 25-5-77(a), Ala.Code 1975, requires an employer and/or its workers' compensation insurance carrier to furnish a disabled claimant with a motor vehicle. That section provides, in part:
"In addition to the compensation provided in this article and Article 4 of this chapter, the employer ... shall pay an amount not to exceed the prevailing rate or maximum schedule of fees as established herein of reasonably necessary medical and surgical treatment and attention, physical rehabilitation, medicine, medical and surgical supplies, crutches, artificial members, and other apparatus as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, as may be obtained by the injured employee...."
§ 25-5-77(a), Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added). The central issue, therefore, may be broken down into two principal subparts:
(1) Does a motor vehicle come within the term "other apparatus" as that term is used in § 25-5-77(a)? and, if so,
(2) Is the purchase of a motor vehicle in this case a "reasonably necessary" expense within the meaning of that Code section?
We conclude that a motor vehicle does not come within the term "other apparatus" as that term is used in this statute. Because of this conclusion, we do not address whether
Facts and Procedural History
Maylond T. Bishop was a policeman employed by the City of Guntersville. On July 16, 1993, Bishop was shot in the back while he was on duty. As a result, he was rendered paraplegic, and he is now confined to a wheelchair. He sued for workers' compensation benefits, and on June 16, 1995, the trial court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment in Bishop's lawsuit against the City and its workers' compensation insurance carrier, Municipal Workers' Compensation Fund, Inc. (collectively, the "City"). Bishop and the City had stipulated, and the trial court found: (1) that Bishop was an employee of the City of Guntersville when he sustained his injury; (2) that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment; (3) that Bishop is permanently and totally disabled as a result of the injury; (4) that the City received prompt and immediate notice of the injury; and (5) that all Bishop's medical expenses and temporary total disability benefits have been, or will be, paid. As a result, the trial court entered a final judgment setting Bishop's weekly lifetime benefit payments at $328.87.
Before the trial court entered its judgment, Bishop had purchased a Chevrolet van for approximately $24,500. After the trial court entered its judgment, Bishop requested that the City reimburse him for the full purchase price of the van. The City agreed to pay for the cost of installing a wheelchair lift in the van, but denied that it was responsible for the full purchase price of the vehicle. The City subsequently sued Bishop in the Marshall Circuit Court, seeking a judgment declaring that § 25-5-77(a) did not require the City to reimburse Bishop for the purchase price of the van.
The circuit court entered a judgment declaring that the City was responsible for the full purchase price of the van. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. City of Guntersville, Municipal Workers' Compensation Fund v. Bishop, 728 So.2d 605 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). We granted certiorari review.
In support of his contention that he should be reimbursed for the price of the van, Bishop presented letters from two physicians, both of whom are associated with the Department of Rehabilitative Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham ("UAB") School of Medicine. Both physicians wrote, in essence, that it was necessary for Bishop to have a van with a wheelchair lift to facilitate transportation. Specifically, Dr. Laura Kezar1 wrote, in part:
"I am currently following [Mr. Bishop] for chronic pain syndrome following spinal cord injury. His case has been complicated by the development of severe overuse syndromes involving the bilateral upper extremities, right worse than left. He has recently undergone carpal tunnel release at the right wrist. Because of these problems which are a direct result of his spinal cord injury, I feel it is medically necessary that he obtain a van with a wheelchair lift in order to restore his mobility to the highest possible level of independent functioning."
(Emphasis added.) Dr. C.T. Huang2 wrote:
"Mr. Bishop was injured in 1993 resulting in T11 paraplegia, complete. As a result of this permanent injury, the patient needs a van for transportation."
(Emphasis added.)
At the trial of this case, the parties entered into the following joint stipulation of facts:
"1. On July 16, 1993, [Bishop] was employed as a police officer with the City of Guntersville. On that day, [Bishop] was shot in the back by an assailant while [Bishop was] performing his duties as a police officer. As a result of the gunshot wound, [Bishop] was rendered paraplegic and is wheelchair bound.
"2. On June 16, 1995, [the Marshall Circuit Court] entered a final judgment in728 So.2d 614Civil Action No. CV-94-374 entitling [Bishop] to receive lifetime [workers'] compensation benefits from [the City] in the sum of $328.87 per week. The Court also ordered [the City] to pay all reasonable and necessary medical expenses in connection with [Bishop's] injuries as required by § 25-5-77.
"3. In order to facilitate his transportation in a wheelchair, [Bishop] on or about March 29, 1995, purchased a 1994 Chevrolet van for approximately $24,500.00.
"4. [Bishop] asserts that the van is a `reasonable and necessary' medical expense, and has requested that the [City] reimburse him for the full purchase price of the van.
"5. The [City] has paid to have a wheelchair lift installed in the van, but denies any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffiths v. W.C.A.B., 148 MAP 2005.
...van). Other states seem to be less flexible in their interpretation and response. For example, in Ex parte City of Guntersville, 728 So.2d 611 (Ala.1998), the claimant, a city police officer, suffered a bullet wound to his back in the line of duty rendering him a paraplegic and confined to ......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. Etc. v. Chambers, CA 01-424.
...Gas), 692 A.2d 623 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1997) (van not "orthopedic appliance"). The most persuasive decision is City of Guntersville v. Bishop, 728 So.2d 611 (Ala.1998). There, as here, the issue was one of first impression. The Alabama Supreme Court analyzed the statute in question, its own rules ......
-
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Randall Chambers, 01-424
...692 A.2d 623 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997) (van not "orthopedic appliance"). The most persuasive decision is City of Guntersville v. Bishop, 728 So.2d 611 (Ala. 1998). There, as here, the issue was one of first impression. The Alabama Supreme Court analyzed the statute in question, its own rules of......
-
Perry & Williams, Inc. v. Mitchell, 2050508.
...of and in the course of the employment" under § 25-5-77(a), as construed by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte City of Guntersville, 728 So.2d 611 (Ala.1998). We In Ex parte City of Guntersville, the injured employee, a city police officer, suffered in the line of duty a bullet wound in ......