Gilbreath v. Eastwood Foods, Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 April 1990
• Citation: 575 So.2d 87
• Parties: Dwight A. GILBREATH v. EASTWOOD FOODS, INC. Civ. 7301.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 87

575 So.2d 87

Dwight A. GILBREATH v. EASTWOOD FOODS, INC.

Civ. 7301.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 11, 1990.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1990.

T.J. Carnes of Carnes & Carnes, Albertville, for appellant.

James C. Stivender of Inzer, Suttle, Swann & Stivender, Gadsden, for appellee.

ROBERT P. BRADLEY, Retired Appellate Judge.

Gilbreath appeals from a judgment entered in his favor in a workmen's compensation action.

After ore tenus proceedings the trial court determined that Gilbreath sustained work-related injuries to both of his hands while employed at an Eastwood Foods chicken processing plant. The trial court determined that "except for three weeks, [Gilbreath] was temporarily totally disabled from April 19, 1986, until July 9, 1987, and that since the last date, [Gilbreath] has been and will continue to be permanently partially disabled by 50% as to his ability to earn." Gilbreath's "motion for modification" was denied in a subsequent order by the trial court.

Gilbreath begins his argument by asking what is the applicable standard of review in workmen's compensation cases. He says that at different times the appellate courts of this state have said that the standard of review was "substantial" evidence to support the findings of the trial court, Tiger Motor Co. v. Winslett, 278 Ala. 108, 176 So.2d 39 (1965); "any legal evidence" to support the trial court's findings, Associated Forest Materials v. Keller, 537 So.2d 957 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); or "any reasonable view" of the evidence to support the trial court's findings. Ex parte Beaver Valley Corp., 477 So.2d 408 (Ala.1985).

Although it does appear that the appellate courts of this state have used different standards of review in workmen's compensation cases in the past, this court is not permitted to select what it considers to be the appropriate standard of review. We are bound to follow the most recent state supreme court decision on the subject. Glass v. Hinde, 504 So.2d 316 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); § 12-3-16, Code 1975. The most recent supreme court decision establishing a standard of review in workmen's compensation cases is Ex parte Patterson, 561 So.2d 236 (Ala.1990).

In the Patterson case the supreme court said:

"Our review in workmen's compensation cases is limited to a determination of whether there was any legal evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact. If any reasonable view of the evidence supports the findings of the trial court, this Court may then determine whether the correct legal conclusions have been drawn therefrom. Ex parte Neal, 423 So.2d 850 (Ala.1982)."

Ex parte Patterson, 561 So.2d 236 (Ala.1990) (emphasis supplied). The trial court in Patterson found that no evidence was introduced to show that Patterson suffered a job-related injury. The supreme court, however, said that the employer failed to prove that the employee had been assaulted by fellow employees and failed to prove that idiopathic factors led to the employee's injury. Consequently, since the employee was working at his job at the time of his injury, the only reasonable view of the evidence required a finding that the employee's injury was causally connected to his employment.

Since Patterson is the latest expression of the supreme court on the standard of review in workmen's compensation cases, we will apply the reasonable view of the evidence standard set out therein.

Gilbreath does argue other issues in his brief but, generally, they all are directed toward the contention that the trial court erred by refusing to find him permanently and totally disabled to earn a living. Our application of the Patterson standard of review to the facts in the case at bar will answer the other issues raised by Gilbreath in his brief.

Gilbreath was injured when a box of chicken he was attempting to pull off a pallet fell and crushed his left hand. After having the left hand placed in a brace, Gilbreath returned to work. However, as Gilbreath used the left hand it became increasingly swollen and painful. Gilbreath was sent to Dr. Maddox, an orthopedic surgeon, who ultimately operated upon the left hand. Dr. Maddox's diagnosis was "reflex sympathetic dystrophy," a condition that affects the nervous system. After the operation and physical therapy, Gilbreath returned to work, despite persistent complaints of pain. He was placed in a one-hand, light-duty position.

Thereafter Gilbreath suffered similar pain and swelling in his right hand. He returned to Dr. Maddox for care and was referred to a rheumatologist, Dr. Hunt. Gilbreath was diagnosed as suffering from reflex sympathetic dystrophy in his right hand. Gilbreath underwent physical therapy and steroid medication. Subsequently, when Gilbreath's condition failed to respond to treatment, Dr. Maddox determined that Gilbreath should find work that does not require strenuous and repetitive use of his hands, or retire.

In Alabama, "total disability" is not absolute helplessness or entire physical disability; rather it is the inability to perform the work of one's trade or the inability to obtain reasonably gainful employment. City of Muscle Shoals v. Davis, 406 So.2d 919 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 406 So.2d 923 (Ala.1981).

Under § 25-5-57(a)(4)d. "total disability" is defined: "[A]ny physical injury or mental impairment resulting from an accident, which ... permanently and totally incapacitates the employee from working at and being retrained for gainful employment, shall constitute ... the sole basis on which an award of permanent total disability may be based...." (Emphasis added.)

We must determine if a reasonable view of the evidence supports a conclusion that Gilbreath's injuries have resulted in: (1) an inability to perform the work of his trade, and (2) an inability to work at, and to be retrained for, gainful employment.

The record reveals that Gilbreath is forty-five years old and cannot read or write. His job history reveals that he has been engaged in manual labor, except for one position as a security guard, usually requiring repetitive use of his hands and arms. At the time of his...