Ex Parte Mitchell
Decision Date | 25 January 2008 |
Docket Number | 1060356. |
Citation | 989 So.2d 1083 |
Parties | Ex parte William Earl MITCHELL. (In re Perry & Williams, Inc. v. William Earl Mitchell) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Greg Allen of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, for petitioner.
William H. Webster of Webster, Henry, Lyons & White, P.C., Montgomery, for respondent.
In November 2005, William Earl Mitchell filed a motion in the trial court asking the court to award him a motorized scooter and a lift to put the scooter on his vehicle under a previous workers' compensation judgment that left open the issue of future medical benefits. The trial court granted Mitchell's motion. Relying on this Court's decision in Ex parte City of Guntersville, 728 So.2d 611 (Ala.1998), the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court awarding Mitchell the scooter and the lift. See Perry & Williams, Inc. v. Mitchell, 989 So.2d 1074 (Ala.Civ.App. 2006). This Court held in Ex parte City of Guntersville that a van was not a device that served to improve a disabled employee's condition and, therefore, did not come within the meaning of the term "other apparatus" under § 25-5-77(a), Ala.Code 1975. We granted Mitchell's petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether this Court's holding in Ex parte City of Guntersville should be clarified or overruled.
On May 11, 1999, the Montgomery Circuit Court entered a judgment finding that Mitchell had suffered a compensable injury in July 1996, caused by inhaling toxic fumes during the course of his employment with Perry & Williams, Inc. The trial court awarded Mitchell workers' compensation benefits in accordance with the Workers' Compensation Act, § 25-5-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the Act"). The trial court specified in its judgment that Mitchell's right to any future medical benefits would remain open pursuant to the Act. See § 25-5-77, Ala.Code 1975.
On November 10, 2005, Mitchell moved the trial court to enforce the medical-benefits provision of the May 1999 workers' compensation judgment, alleging that his medical condition had deteriorated, that he was in "need of a scooter and a lift for the scooter for mobility," and that Perry & Williams should pay for the expenses associated with the purchase of the scooter and the lift.
Perry & Williams responded to Mitchell's motion, disputing that the scooter and the lift were properly payable medical benefits under § 25-5-77(a), Ala.Code 1975, which mandates that the employer provide "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 ...." Perry & Williams argued that based on this Court's holding in Ex parte City of Guntersville, supra, the scooter and the lift did not constitute "other apparatus" so as to be a compensable medical expense under § 25-5-77(a), because the scooter and the lift were merely to assist Mitchell with his mobility and did not improve his medical condition. Perry & Williams also argued that Mitchell's alleged need for a scooter and a lift was not related to his workers' compensation injury, but was related to other medical conditions from which Mitchell also suffered. In support of their position, Perry & Williams presented the affidavits of Mitchell's treating physicians, Dr. Mont F. Highley III and Dr. William P. Saliski, Jr. Dr. Highley stated as follows in his affidavit:
Dr. Saliski testified as follows in his affidavit:
Mitchell responded to Perry & Williams's response by submitting on December 15, 2005, a second affidavit of Dr. Highley, which addressed the issue of causation. Dr. Highley testified in his second affidavit as follows:
On January 13, 2006, the trial court entered an order requiring Perry & Williams to provide Mitchell with the requested scooter and lift, finding that they were "other apparatus" covered under § 25-5-77(a). The trial court's order reads, in part, as follows:
Perry & Williams argued on appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals that the scooter and the lift were not "other apparatus" that was "reasonably necessary ... as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment" pursuant to § 25-5-77(a), as that provision was construed by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Patton (Ex parte Patton)
...the Act; to the extent that Byrom conflicts with those previous decisions, it is due to be, and is hereby, overruled. In Ex parte Mitchell, 989 So.2d 1083 (Ala.2008), we noted that “ ‘ “[c]ourts must liberally construe the workers' compensation law ‘to effectuate its beneficent purposes' ” ......
-
Ex Parte Morris
... ... 1985); Ex parte City of Birmingham, 988 So.2d 1035 (Ala.2008); Ex parte Mitchell, 989 So.2d 1083 (Ala.2008); and Trott v. Brinks, Inc., 972 So.2d 81 (Ala. 2007). 999 So.2d at 938. Each of the foregoing cases contains the limitation on the rule of liberal construction that such construction must be one that the language of the statute fairly and reasonably supports. A ... ...
-
Flanagan Lumber Co. v. Tennison
...physician[ ], no presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's judgment, and appellate review is de novo.” Ex parte Mitchell, 989 So.2d 1083, 1089–90 (Ala.2008) (citing Hacker v. Carlisle, 388 So.2d 947 (Ala.1980) ).Analysis Flanagan Lumber first contends that the trial court's j......
- Ala. Forest Prods. Indus. Workmen's Comp. Self-Insurers' Fund v. Harris
-
Alabama Medical Records: Part 2
...are also exempted, but "similar materials" must be "of the same nature or class as those named in the specific list." Ex parte Mitchell, 989 So. 2d 1083, 1091 (Ala. 2008) (stating the rule of ejusdem generis). Thus, for example, peer review proceedings to grant or retain a physician's staff......