Ex Parte Dolgencorp, Inc., 1060428.
Decision Date | 31 October 2008 |
Docket Number | 1060428. |
Citation | 13 So.3d 888 |
Parties | Ex parte DOLGENCORP, INC. (In re Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Barbara Ann Gibson). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert S. Lamar, Jr., and Rick D. Norris, Jr., of Lamar, Miller, Norris, Haggard & Christie, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.
Joseph C. McCorquodale of McCorquodale & McCorquodale, Jackson, for respondent.
Craig A. Alexander of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., Birmingham; and Helen Johnson Alford of Alford, Clausen & McDonald, LLC, Mobile, for amicus curiae Alabama Defense Lawyers Association, in support of the petitioner.
Leila H. Watson of Cory, Watson Crowder & DeGaris, P.C., Birmingham; and Patrick J. Ballard of Ballard Law Office, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Association for Justice, in support of the respondent.
We granted certiorari in this workers' compensation case to review an alleged conflict between the no-opinion affirmance of the trial court's judgment by the Court of Civil Appeals and that court's earlier decisions regarding the appropriate application of § 25-5-57(b), Ala.Code 1975, a portion of the Workers' Compensation Act, § 25-5-1 et seq., Ala Code 1975. Section 25-5-57(b) provides:
We conclude that a conflict does exist, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the case to that court for resolution.
Barbara Ann Gibson began work for Dollar General, a retail discount store owned by Dolgencorp, Inc. ("Dolgen"), as an hourly wage employee on or about December 2, 1998. She continued to work for Dolgen for 33 weeks2 until she suffered a work-related injury on July 28, 1999. She had become store manager in June 1999, and her salary was increased to $425 per week. After her injury, Gibson resigned. Her earnings for the 33 weeks that she worked totaled $8,715.88. This amount divided by 33 weeks results in average weekly earnings of $264.12.
Gibson sued Dolgen in the Clarke Circuit Court in a dispute over the extent of her disability and the amount of her average weekly earnings, which would determine the amount of any disability payments. The extent of Gibson's disability is not at issue on appeal, but Dolgen challenges the trial court's finding that Gibson's average weekly earnings were $425. The trial court, apparently relying heavily on the fact that Dolgen reported Gibson's salary as $425 per week when it filed the "Employer's First Report of Injury," used that amount as the basis for computing Gibson's benefits.
The trial court's order, dated December 13, 2005, reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
Dolgen appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, challenging only the trial court's finding of average weekly earnings of $425, arguing that the trial court should have calculated Gibson's benefit based on average weekly earnings of $264.12 under the statute, and not on average weekly earnings of $425. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, without an opinion, on October 20, 2006, citing only Henderson v. Johnson, 632 So.2d 488, 490 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), presumably that portion of Henderson that states that "when it is impracticable to apply the formulas for determining average weekly wage so as to arrive at a just and fair result to both parties, it is left to the sound judgment and judicial discretion of the trial court." Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Gibson (No. 2050335, Oct. 20, 2006), 3 So.3d 296 (Ala. Civ.App.2006) (table). Dolgen sought certiorari review of the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, arguing that it conflicts with several decisions of this Court and of the Court of Civil Appeals. This Court granted Dolgen's petition.
Dolgen argues that in Collins v. Westmoreland, 600 So.2d 253, 255 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991), the Court of Civil Appeals construed § 25-5-57(b), Ala.Code 1975, to mean that where the duration of employment is less than 52 weeks, the second method in the statute for determining average weekly earnings should be used. Dolgen argues that the Court of Civil Appeals' decision to affirm the judgment of the trial court here conflicts with that earlier opinion. Gibson argues that the trial court was within its discretion to determine her average weekly earnings as it did, because, Gibson asserts, the statute is not mandatory when the employee, as here, did not work in the employment for 52 weeks preceding the injury. Gibson also argues that Dolgen's insertion of $425 as the average weekly salary on the Employer's First Report of Injury is an admission against interest that supports the trial court's finding even where other evidence might support a contrary finding. Gibson's brief at 27.
Standard of review
Ex parte Toyota Motor Corp., 684 So.2d 132, 135 (Ala.1996). The standard of review in the Court of Civil Appeals was as follows:
"[An appellate court] will not reverse the trial court's finding of fact if that finding is supported by substantial evidence—if that finding is supported by `evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.'"
Ex parte Trinity Indus., Inc., 680 So.2d 262, 268-69 (Ala.1996) (quoting West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989)). However, "an appellate court's review of the proof and consideration of other legal issues in a workers' compensation case shall be without a presumption of correctness." Ex parte American Color Graphics, Inc., 838 So.2d 385, 387-88 (Ala.2002) (citing § 25-5-81(e)(1), Ala.Code 1975). Ex parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 873 So.2d 1116, 1121 (A...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green v. T.R. Miller Mill Co.
... Carl Green v. T.R. Miller Mill Company, Inc., and Yother Construction Management Carl Green v. Yother ... Yother was not a party to that judgment, see Ex ... parte Glassmeyer , 204 So.3d 906, 908 (Ala. Civ. App ... 2016) ... support during his disability, see Ex parte Dolgencorp, ... Inc. , 13 So.3d 888, 893 (Ala. 2008) (authored by Parker, ... ...
-
Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Gibson
... ... 3 So.3d 296 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (table). The Supreme Court of Alabama has reversed this court's judgment and remanded the cause. Ex parte Dolgencorp, Inc., 13 So.3d 888 (Ala.2008). In compliance with the Supreme Court's opinion, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause ... ...
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...Color Graphics, Inc., 838 So. 2d 385, 387-88 (Ala. 2002) (citing § 25-5-81(e)(1), Ala. Code 1975). Accord, Ex parte Dolgencorp, Inc., 13 So. 3d 888, 893 (2008); Ex parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 873 So. 2d 1116, 1121 (Ala. 2003). d. Domestic relations Where the trial court issues findin......