Malone v. Steelcase, Inc.

Citation142 So.3d 640
Decision Date20 September 2013
Docket Number2111256.
PartiesCarolyn MALONE v. STEELCASE, INC.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Donald R. Rhea of Rhea, Boyd & Rhea, Gadsden; and Rebekah Keith McKinneyof Watson McKinney, LLC, Huntsville, for appellant.

D. Edward Starnes III and Jeffrey T. Kelley of Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne P.C., Huntsville, for appellee.

Lawrence T. King and Lindsey O. Simmons of King Simmons, P.C., Birmingham, for amici curiae “The Unions,” * in support of the appellant.

Patrick J. Ballard of Ballard Law Office, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Association for Justice, in support of the appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Carolyn Malone appeals a June 11, 2012, judgment that awarded her workers' compensation benefits but also allowed her employer, Steelcase, Inc. (“Steelcase”), to offset the award by certain amounts it had paid in salary to Malone after her injury. The issue presented to the court is solely one of law. Accordingly, we quote a portion of the trial court's judgment for a recitation of the pertinent facts, as well as the trial court's factual determinations and legal conclusions:

“This workers' compensation action came before the Court for trial on November 30, 2011. The plaintiff, Carolyn Malone, seeks workers' compensation benefits for a lower back injury which she alleges was caused by an accident on May 21, 2008. The defendant, Steelcase, Inc., disputes [Malone's] claim, denies that [Malone] sustained a compensable injury, and avers that it is entitled to a credit or offset pursuant to Ala.Code [§] § 25–5–56 and –57 (1975), for wages and benefits paid to [Malone]. After considering [Malone's] testimony, the testimony of the other witnesses, the medical records, and other evidence presented to the Court, the Court renders the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment entry:

“STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES

“1. An employer/employee relationship existed between the parties on May 21, 2008, and all times pertinent to this action.

“2. The parties are subject to the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act [(the Act), § 25–5–1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975].

“3. [Malone] has been continuously employed by [Steelcase] since May 21, 2008.

“4. [Malone] has been paid wages on a continuous basis since May 21, 2008.

“5. All medical expenses incurred by [Malone] for medical treatment related to the reported May 21, 2008, incident have been paid by [Steelcase] pursuant to Ala.Code § 25–5–56 (1975), and in accordance with Ala.Code § 25–5–77 (1975).

“6. [Malone's] average weekly wage is $489.20.

“FINDINGS OF FACT

“1. The parties are subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court.

“2. [Steelcase] received notice in accordance with the Act.

“3. On May 21, 2008, [Malone] was employed in the C9000 department at Steelcase. Her job involved the attachment of small parts to panels, which were processed on an assembly line/conveyor type system. After the parts were affixed, [Malone] and a co-worker moved the panels down the line for the next stage of the process.

“4. On May 21, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., [Malone] was engaged in affixing parts to 65? x 60? panels. As she and a co-worker were moving a panel, the co-worker dropped one end of a 65? x 60? panel as [Malone] and a co-worker were in the process of moving the panel from her work table to an adjacent conveyer belt. [Malone] experienced pain in her lower back.

“5. [Malone] gave written notice of the incident on May 29, 2008. [Malone] was referred to Occupational Health Group (‘OHG’) of Decatur for medical treatment. [Malone] was examined by Dr. Fred J. McMurty on May 29, 2008, for complaints of lower back pain. [Malone] was authorized to return to work with restrictions. [Malone] was subsequently treated conservatively at OHG.

“....

“8. On September 24, 2008, Dr. [Cyrus] Ghavam found that [Malone] was at maximum medical improvement and authorized her to return to regular duty work. He did not assign any physical impairment.

“....

“13. On February 15, 2010, Dr. [Keith] Anderson confirmed Dr. Ghavam's September 24, 2008, opinion that [Malone] is at maximum medical improvement. He assigned a permanent impairment of 10% to the body as a whole.

“14. [Malone] has maintained continuous employment at Steelcase subsequent to May 21, 2008. Her job duties were accommodated as necessary to conform with any restrictions assigned by her treating physicians. She has continued to work on a full-time basis and received her regular wage rate. Her hourly wage rate had increased to $13 per hour at the time of trial. She has not sustained any actual wage loss as a result of the accident. She is physically capable of performing the physical duties of her current job. Her current job is a combination of functions involving a customer service job and a hinge assembly job. The job functions have been accommodated to allow [Malone] to stand and sit at various times during the day.

“15. Dr. Anderson is of the opinion, based on the history provided by [Malone], that her lower back complaints were caused by the reported accident on May 21, 2008.

“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

[Malone] sustained an injury to her lower back on May 21, 2008, which arose out of and in the course of her employment. The lower back injury resulted in a permanent physical impairment of twenty five per cent (25%) to the body as a whole. Based on the average weekly wage of $489.20 per week, the compensation rate is $326.15. The weekly compensation rate is $81.54 per week ($326.15 x 25%).

[Steelcase] is entitled to a credit/offset, on a week-by-week basis, for any compensation benefits due, for each week in which [Malone] was paid wages by [Steelcase], in accordance with Ala.Code § 25–5–57(c)(3) (1975).

“JUDGMENT ENTRY

“In accordance with the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court as follows:

“A. As a result of her May 21, 2008, injury, [Malone] shall have and recover a judgment against the defendant Steelcase, Inc., for permanent partial disability compensation at a weekly compensation rate of $81.54. From and after February 15, 2010, the date that Dr. Anderson determined that [Malone] was at maximum medical improvement, through June 15, 2012, or a period of 122 weeks, [Malone] is entitled to receive physical impairment benefits at a rate of $81.54 per week or a total of $9,947.88, of which [her attorneys] are entitled to a fee .... [Steelcase] is entitled to a credit/offset, in the amount of $69.30 per week, for the wages paid to [Malone] each week from and after the date that she reached maximum medical improvement until such time said wages cease to be paid. If said wages cease to be paid during the 300 week period subsequent to February 15, 2010, then, and under those circumstances, [Malone] shall be entitled to receive from [Steelcase] $69.30 per week for the remainder of the 300 weeks due and owing.”

(Capitalization in original; emphasis added.)

On appeal, Malone argues that the trial court erred in awarding Steelcase a setoff or credit against the benefits it awarded her in its June 11, 2012, judgment. Malone argues that the trial court applied an incorrect interpretation of § 25–5–57(c)(3), Ala.Code 1975, in awarding Steelcase a credit or offset against the workers' compensation award for amounts she received in salary while working for Steelcase after the date she reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”). Steelcase argues that the trial court properly interpreted § 25–5–57(c)(3) in awarding it a credit for salary it paid to Malone during the benefit period. This court has allowed the Alabama Association for Justice (“AAJ”) and AFL–CIO Alabama each to file a brief as an amicus curiae. Both of the amici curiae have filed briefs in support of Malone's position in this appeal.

We note that, in asserting their arguments before this court, the parties have stipulated that Steelcase made no accommodations to allow Malone to continue in her employment and that Malone's job duties were within the restrictions assigned to Malone by her doctors.1 In other words, the parties have agreed that Malone's employment was not “sheltered employment” and that the wages Steelcase paid Malone when she returned to work after her injury were not paid in sympathy for her injury.

The portion of the Workers' Compensation Act (“the Act”), § 25–5–1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, concerning setoffs or credits to be afforded an employer against a workers' compensation award provides:

(c) Setoff for other recovery. In calculating the amount of workers' compensation due:

(1) The employer may reduce or accept an assignment from an employee of the amount of benefits paid pursuant to a disability plan, retirement plan, or other plan providing for sick pay by the amount of compensation paid, if and only if the employer provided the benefits or paid for the plan or plans providing the benefits deducted.

(2) The employee shall forfeit to the employer all compensation paid for any period to which is attributed any award of back pay either by a court, administrative agency, arbitration, or settlement, provided, however, social security payments shall not be included herein.

(3) If an employer continues the salary of an injured employee during the benefit period or pays similar compensation during the benefit period, the employer shall be allowed a setoff in weeks against the compensation owed under this article. For the purposes of this section, voluntary contributions to a Section 125–cafeteria plan for a disability or sick pay program shall not be considered as being provided by the employer.”

§ 25–5–57(c), Ala.Code 1975.

This court has addressed the setoff provided in § 25–5–57(c)(3) in two cases. In City of Montgomery v. Casper, 849 So.2d 966 (Ala.Civ.App.2002), the injured worker was awarded benefits for a permanent total disability, and the employer argued, among other things, that it was entitled to a credit for salary it had paid the worker when she returned to work for half days for a period after...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT