McClelland v. Simon-Williamson Clinic, P.C.
Decision Date | 04 November 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 2031075.,2031075. |
Citation | 933 So.2d 367 |
Parties | Bryan McCLELLAND v. SIMON-WILLIAMSON CLINIC, P.C. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Shay Samples and Bruce J. McKee of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, for appellant.
Joseph H. Driver and Donald E. Kirkpatrick II of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Bryan McClelland, M.D. ("the doctor"), sued Simon-Williamson Clinic, P.C. ("the clinic"), seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries he claims he sustained on February 7, 2000, in the line and scope of his employment.2 The clinic answered and denied liability. The clinic later filed a motion for a summary judgment, and the doctor filed a motion for a partial summary judgment as to the issue of workers' compensation coverage. On April 23, 2004, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the clinic. That judgment stated, in relevant part:
1 The [doctor] recognized that this obligation also stems from the applicable medical standard of care.
2 [The clinic] paid for the [doctor]'s [cellular telephone] that was used to make and receive calls while the [doctor] was in his vehicle."
The doctor timely appeals.
Beachcroft Props., LLP v. City of Alabaster, 901 So.2d 703, 707 (Ala.2004) ( ).
Pursuant to § 25-5-31, Ala.Code 1975, an employee's injuries are compensable if his accident arose out of and in the course of employment. Although "`"[c]ourts must liberally construe the workers' compensation law `to effectuate its beneficent purposes,' ... such a construction must be one that the language of the statute `fairly and reasonably' supports."'" Fort James Operating Co. v. Irby, 911 So.2d 727, 733 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (quoting Ex parte Weaver, 871 So.2d 820, 824 (Ala.2003), quoting in turn Ex parte Dunlop Tire Corp., 706 So.2d 729, 733 (Ala.1997), quoting in turn Ex parte Beaver Valley Corp., 477 So.2d 408, 411 (Ala. 1985)). Our supreme court has said that "[a]n injury to an employee arises in the course of his employment when it occurs within the period of his employment, at a place where he may reasonably be and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incident to it." Massey v. United States Steel Corp., 264 Ala. 227, 230, 86 So.2d 375, 378 (1955) (emphasis added). Regarding the "going and coming" rule, our supreme court has stated:
."
Ex parte Shelby County Health Care Auth., 850 So.2d 332, 336 (Ala.2002). In Ex parte Shelby County Health Care Authority, the supreme court explained that only a few exceptions exist to the "going and coming" rule:
Ex parte Shelby County Health Care Auth., 850 So.2d at 336 (emphasis added). This last emphasized exception is commonly referred to as the "dual purpose" or "dual capacity" exception. See Tucker v. Die-Matic Tool Co., 652 So.2d 263, 265 (Ala.Civ.App.1994).
The doctor first argues that he was "on the job" while traveling to work during his normal commute on February 7, 2000, because, he claims, he was engaged in performing job duties during the commute. The doctor points to the following facts in support of this argument: the clinic required him to take patient calls 24 hours a day, which included the period of time he was traveling to and from work; the clinic paid for the cost of his cellular telephone; the doctor actually used his cellular telephone to respond to a patient's call during his commute on February 7, 2000; and that call ended within a short time frame before the accident occurred.
However, the doctor concedes in his appellate brief that being on call is not the same as being on duty. See Ex parte Blackmon, 289 Ala. 635, 270 So.2d 108 (1972) ( ). Further, even if we were to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hospice Family Care v. Allen
...[ (Ala.Civ.App.1994) ].’"Ex parte Shelby County Health Care Auth., 850 So.2d at 336 (emphasis added)."McClelland v. Simon–Williamson Clinic, P.C., 933 So.2d 367, 370 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).In this case the employee was acting in furtherance of the business affairs of HFC. We base our conclusion......