Ford v. Crystal Laundry Co., Inc., 6 Div. 463.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1939
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 463.
• Parties: FORD v. CRYSTAL LAUNDRY CO., INC.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

189 So. 730

238 Ala. 187

FORD v. CRYSTAL LAUNDRY CO., INC.

6 Div. 463.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 18, 1939

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1939.

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Tom B. Ward, Special Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Elizabeth Ford against the Crystal Laundry Company, Inc., to recover compensation on account of injury sustained in accident arising out of employment. The employee, being dissatisfied with judgment awarding compensation, brings certiorari.

Affirmed.

Edw deGraffenried, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Livingston & Livingston, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

FOSTER Justice.

This is a certiorari in a compensation case. The trial court found that plaintiff was injured by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment (though not using that language). Chapter 287, Code. This occurred on April 29 1937, and the court further found that she was incapacitated "for a period of time not exceeding eighty-seven weeks," extending from April 29, 1937 to December 31 1938, the date of the judgment, and rendered a judgment for the balance then due of $372, being at the rate of $5 per week up to that date, less what had already been paid.

The effect is to find that she had been suffering from a temporary total disability for eighty-seven weeks extending to the date of the judgment, but not thereafter.

This finding of the court must be sustained if it has support in the evidence. One aspect of the evidence is that plaintiff was at the time of the trial totally disabled from doing her work, and that such disability was not likely to be relieved in the immediate future.

Upon the basis of a finding in accordance with that view, the court should make some estimate from the evidence as to its probable duration and fix the compensation to be payable until such estimated time, not exceeding the maximum. For it must be borne in mind that once it has been fixed by the judgment of the court it cannot be reopened on account of a change in the condition of plaintiff, which may thereafter occur. Ex parte Johnston, 231 Ala. 458, 165 So. 108; Davis v. Birmingham Trussville Iron Co., 223 Ala. 259, 135 So. 455; Ex parte Carlisle, 27 Ala.App. 142, 168 So. 598.

Another aspect of the evidence is to the effect that she had prior to the trial been relieved of her disability.

We recognize the difficulty of being able to fix a day to which total disability extended but did not continue even...