Green v. T.R. Miller Mill Co.

• Decision Date: 22 April 2022
• Docket Number: 2200840,2200851,2200864,2200863
• Parties: Carl Green v. T.R. Miller Mill Company, Inc., and Yother Construction Management Carl Green v. Yother Construction Management Yother Construction Management v. Carl Green and T.R. Miller Mill Company, Inc. Yother Construction Management v. T.R. Miller Mill Company, Inc., and Carl Green
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Carl Green v. T.R. Miller Mill Company, Inc., and Yother Construction Management

Carl Green v. Yother Construction Management

Yother Construction Management v. Carl Green and T.R. Miller Mill Company, Inc.

Yother Construction Management v. T.R. Miller Mill Company, Inc., and Carl Green

Nos. 2200840, 2200851, 2200863, 2200864

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

April 22, 2022

Appeal from Escambia Circuit Court (CV-20-900031), (CV-02-206)

MOORE JUDGE.

These appeals arise out of a judgment entered by the Escambia Circuit Court ("the trial court") denying a workers' compensation claim filed by Carl Green against T.R. Miller Mill Company, Inc. ("T.R. Miller") and determining that Yother Construction Management ("Yother") remains liable to Green to provide continuing medical treatment for a right-hand injury sustained by Green in 2000.

Procedural Background

In 1994, Green injured his right hand in a work-related accident while working for BE & K Construction Company ("BE & K"). As a result of the accident, Green developed reflex sympathetic disorder ("RSD"), a form of complex-regional-pain syndrome, in his injured right upper extremity. Green settled his workers' compensation claim against BE & K, which was approved by the Mobile Circuit Court in a 1996 judgment, and eventually returned to work for Yother, in 2000. On November 24, 2000, Green fell on his right hand and arm while alighting from a forklift he was operating for Yother and aggravated his preexisting RSD. Green sought workers' compensation benefits from Yother and, in 2004, Green settled his workers' compensation claim against Yother. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, which was approved by the trial court in a judgment entered in case number CV-02-206, Yother agreed to provide future reasonably necessary medical treatment for the injury to Green's right upper extremity in accordance with Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-77, a part of the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"), Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-1 et seq.

In 2020, Green commenced a workers' compensation action against his employer, T.R. Miller, alleging that he had injured his right hand and right upper extremity in a December 26, 2019, accident. That action was assigned case number CV-20-900031. After Yother filed a motion in case number CV-02-206 requesting a hearing to determine its continuing liability to pay for medical treatment for Green's right upper extremity, the trial court consolidated case number CV-02-206 and case number CV-20-900031.

On December 9, 2020, the trial court conducted a hearing in the consolidated cases to determine the compensability of Green's alleged December 26, 2019, injury. During that hearing, the parties also tried the issue of which employer, Yother or T.R. Miller, should be liable for any benefits owed to Green on account of the claimed injury. On March 9, 2021, the trial court entered an order in the consolidated cases determining that Green had suffered a recurrence of his 2000 injury. The trial court denied Green's claim for compensation against T.R. Miller, ordered Yother to continue to provide medical treatment to Green, and scheduled the matter for a "final hearing" to determine attorney's fees and "all other remaining issues." After careful consideration, we determine that the March 9, 2021, order is a final judgment because it resolved all the controversies among the parties, leaving only the issue of attorney's fees for adjudication. See State Bd. of Educ. v. Waldrop, 840 So.2d 893 (Ala. 2002).

On April 7, 2021, Green filed a postjudgment motion, and, on April 8, 2021, Yother filed a postjudgment motion. On May 6, 2021, the trial court conducted a "final hearing" on the case and received medical records from Green relating to his treatment since December 9, 2020. The trial court did not rule on the pending postjudgment motions within 90 days of their filings, so they were denied by operation of law on July 6, 2021, and July 7, 2021, respectively. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. On July 20, 2021, the trial court entered an order in the consolidated cases denying any claim for attorney's fees or costs and purporting to adopt the March 9, 2021, order as its final judgment. Cf. McCarn v. Langan, 293 So.3d 383, 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) (holding that entry of a duplicate judgment does not affect the finality of original judgment that fully adjudicated claims of the parties). The latter part of the order purporting to adopt the March 9, 2021, order as its final judgment is a legal nullity. See Alabama Elec. Co. v. Dobbins, 744 So.2d 928, 931 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (holding that order entered after trial court has lost jurisdiction over a postjudgment motion, pursuant to Rule 59.1, is a legal nullity).

Green filed a notice of appeal in case number CV-20-900031 and in case number CV-02-206 on July 26 and July 28, 2021, respectively; Yother filed its notices of appeal on August 2, 2021. Although Green and Yother identified the July 20, 2021, order as the judgment from which they were appealing, we treat the notices of appeal as arising from the final judgment entered on March 9, 2021. See Madison v. Lambert, 428 So.2d 25, 26 (Ala. 1983) (holding that misstatement regarding date of entry of final judgment that did not prejudice appellee would not require dismissal of appeal); Cox v. Poer, 45 Ala.App. 295, 297, 229 So.2d 797, 799 (Civ. 1969) (quoting Strain v. Irwin, 199 Ala. 592, 593, 75 So. 151, 152 (1915), quoting in turn 2 Cyc. 839) ("' "A misrecital of the date of judgment should not necessarily be held fatal to the bond, provided the other elements of the description show with reasonable certainty that it can be no other than that appealed from."' "). The notices of appeal were timely filed within 42 days of the date the postjudgment motions were denied by operation of law, see Rule 4(a)(1) & Rule 4(a)(3), Ala. R. App. P., and, thus, invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this court. See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-3-10.

Preliminary Matters

Green's arguments on appeal relate solely to his appeal from the judgment in favor of T.R. Miller entered in case number CV-20-900031, which we have designated as appeal number 2200840. Yother was not a party to that judgment, see Ex parte Glassmeyer, 204 So.3d 906, 908 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (recognizing that an order of consolidation does not automatically make the parties to one consolidated action parties to the other action), so, although Green identified both T.R. Miller and Yother as appellees, we consider T.R. Miller to be the only proper appellee in appeal number 2200840. See Rule 3(c), Ala. R. App. P. (providing that only an "adverse party" may be named as an appellee). Additionally, Green has not argued any error as to the judgment entered in his favor in case number CV-02-206. Thus, we dismiss his appeal from that judgment, which we have designated as appeal number 2200851.

Yother's arguments on appeal relate solely to its appeal from the judgment entered in case number CV-02-206, which we have designated as appeal number 2200863. T.R. Miller was not a party to that judgment, so, although Yother identified both Green and T.R. Miller as appellees, we consider Green to be the only proper appellee in appeal number 2200863. Also, because Yother was not a party to the judgment entered in case number CV-20-900031, we dismiss its appeal from that judgment, which we have designated as appeal number 2200864. See Triple J Cattle, Inc. v. Chambers, 621 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Ala. 1993) ("To have standing to appeal a judgment, one must have been a party to the judgment below.").

Issues

Green and Yother both argue that the trial court erroneously concluded that Green had suffered a recurrence of his 2000 injury as a result of the December 26, 2019, accident. In appeal number 2200840, Green asserts that the trial court erred in denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits against T.R. Miller. In appeal number 2200863, Yother contends that the trial court erred in determining that Yother is liable for continuing medical treatment for Green's injury to his right upper extremity.

Standard of Review

In a workers' compensation case, the findings of fact made by a trial court, which are based in part on ore tenus testimony, are presumed correct, and a judgment entered in accordance with those findings will be affirmed so long as the findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(2). On the other hand, we review the trial court's legal conclusions without any presumption of correctness. See Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(1).

Discussion

In cases involving successive occupational injuries covered by the Act, this court has adopted the "last-injurious-exposure rule," pursuant to which

" 'liability [for workers' compensation benefits] falls upon the carrier [or employer] covering [the] risk at the time of the most recent injury bearing a causal relation to the disability.' North River Insurance Co. v Purser, 608 So.2d 1379, 1382 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). The trial court must determine whether the second injury is 'a new injury, an aggravation of a prior injury, or a recurrence of an old injury; this determination resolves the issue of which insurer [or employer] is liable.' Id.

"A court finds a recurrence when 'the second [injury] does not contribute even slightly to the causation of the [disability].' 4 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 95.23 at 17-142 (1989). '[T]his group also includes the kind of case in which a worker has suffered a back strain, followed by a period of work with continuing symptoms indicating that the original condition persists, and culminating in a second period of disability precipitated by some lift or exertion.' 4 A. Larson, § 95.23 at

...