Haggard v. Uniroyal, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1982 |
| Citation | 423 So.2d 865 |
| Parties | Ginger HAGGARD v. UNIROYAL, INC. Civ. 3278. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
J. Michael Williams, Sr., Auburn, for appellant.
W.F. Horsley of Samford, Denson, Horsley, Pettey, Martin & Barrett, Opelika, for appellee.
This is an appeal in a workmen's compensation case.
On July 6, 1977 Ginger Haggard injured her left knee in a covered accident while working at Uniroyal, Inc., an employer subject to the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act. The injury occurred when Ms. Haggard was in the process of emptying a pan of grease from a machine and caught the leg of her overalls on an obstruction causing her to fall to the floor. After her injury, she was initially treated by a company physician who referred her to Dr. Harold Gerald Goldsmith, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Goldsmith performed surgery on Ms. Haggard's knee and followed up the procedure with medication and office consultations. He eventually decided that she had recovered to the point that she could return to work and dismissed her as a patient. Because she continued to experience pain, Ms. Haggard consulted with a second orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Steven Hunter. His recommendation was that she undergo further surgery. A hearing was held on November 20, 1979 in the Lee County Circuit Court to determine whether she required the prescribed surgery. In an order dated October 6, 1980 the court found that Ms. Haggard should undergo the surgery and also stated:
Claiming that Ms. Haggard had reached optimum recovery, Uniroyal, Inc., moved for a final judgment on November 30, 1981. On April 6, 1982 the court entered an order stating that an ambiguity existed in its October 6, 1980 order as to whether both temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits would be awarded. The court stated that it had retained jurisdiction to award temporary total benefits inuring to claimant as a result of the second operation. Jurisdiction was not retained to award any permanent partial disability benefits. The court's final order, dated April 22, 1982, stated that Ms. Haggard had been fully compensated for her injury and that no further benefits were due her. Ms. Haggard has appealed to this court from that order.
Our review in a workmen's compensation case, so far as the evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitsett v. BAMSI, Inc.
...injury and ... the provisions of that law should be liberally construed to accomplish just such a result.' "Haggard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 423 So.2d 865, 866 (Ala.Civ.App.1982)." Ex parte Hagan, 607 So.2d 219, 221 (Ala.1992). The Alabama Workers' Compensation Act is to be construed liberally so......
-
Malone v. Steelcase, Inc.
...to “effectuate the intended beneficial purposes” of the Act. Act. No. 92–537, § 1, Ala. Acts 1992; see also Haggard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 423 So.2d 865, 866 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (citing Reynolds Metals Co. v. Gray, 278 Ala. 309, 178 So.2d 87 (1965)) (same). Steelcase agrees that the Act is to be......
-
Hilyard Drilling Co., Inc. v. Janes
...for his job-related injury, and provisions of the law should be liberally construed to accomplish that result. Haggard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 423 So.2d 865 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). All reasonable doubts regarding a provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act should be resolved in favor of the employ......
-
Crown Textile Co. v. Dial
...of whether there is any legal evidence, or reasonable inferences therefrom, to support the trial court's judgment. Haggard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 423 So.2d 865 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). We are not to consider the weight of the evidence nor the propriety of the trial court's finding of fact. Wallace R......