MMR Constructors, Inc. v. Taylor

• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
• Writing for the Court: MOORE, PRESIDING JUDGE.
• Docket Number: CL-2024-0979
• Decision Date: 24 October 2025
• Citation: MMR Constructors, Inc. v. Taylor, CL-2024-0979 (Ala. Civ. App. Oct 24, 2025)
• Parties: MMR Constructors, Inc. v. Darrell Wayne Taylor

1

MMR Constructors, Inc. v. Darrell Wayne Taylor

No. CL-2024-0979

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

October 24, 2025

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court (CV-24-901049)

MOORE PRESIDING JUDGE.

MMR Constructors, Inc. ("the employer"), appeals from a judgment of the Mobile Circuit Court ("the trial court") determining that Darrell Wayne Taylor ("the employee") received personal injuries from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the employer and awarding him temporary-total-disability compensation and medical benefits under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"), Ala Code 1975, § 25-5-1 et seq. See Ex parte Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC, 209 So.3d 496, 502 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (authorizing appeals from such judgments). We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Background

On March 20, 2024, the employee was involved in a motor-vehicle accident while in the course of his employment. On March 22 2024, the employer denied the employee's claim for workers' compensation benefits. On April 25, 2024, the employee filed a complaint to enforce his rights under the Act. On June 14, 2024, the employer filed an answer to the complaint. On June 25, 2024, the employee filed a motion requesting that the trial court conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the compensability of his injuries. See Ex parte Publix, Inc., 963 So.2d 654 (Ala. Civ App. 2007). The trial court granted the motion and held the compensability hearing on October 16, 2024. At the hearing, the trial court received the following pertinent evidence.

The employee developed a cough and was treated for that condition at an urgent-care center in February 2024. On March 18, 2024, the employee returned to the urgent-care center, where he was diagnosed with acute bronchitis, but he was cleared to return to work. On March 20, 2024, the employee reported to work on a construction project at a plant in Calvert. The employee commenced his ordinary duties, which, at that time, included hauling fuel cans throughout the plant in a "buggy," a motor vehicle similar to a golf cart. The buggy was equipped with some safety devices, but not an air bag. The employer's corporate representative testified that he did not think that operating the buggy was any riskier than driving an automobile on a public road.

At approximately 10:00 a.m. on March 20, 2024, the employee was driving the buggy on a private road at the plant when, he claimed, a construction vehicle, which he called a forklift, pulled out in front of him. The employee said that he inhaled exhaust fumes from the forklift and started severely coughing before quickly losing consciousness. A witness testified that he did not see any vehicle in front of the buggy at the time of the accident. After the employee lost consciousness, he slumped to his left and the buggy accelerated from 5 miles per hour to approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour. The buggy swerved to the left, and the employee's head slumped outside of the cab. The buggy left the road and hit a nearby print shack; the employee's exposed head struck a metal box. The buggy came to a stop, where it was shut down by a nearby worker responding to the accident.

The employee was treated for his injuries at the University of South Alabama Hospital. He told the hospital staff that he had been coughing for the past four days, but he did not mention breathing in any exhaust fumes before he started coughing and lost consciousness. The employee continued to have coughing episodes while being treated. The employee was diagnosed primarily with a skull fracture, a forehead laceration, and vasovagal syncope and, secondarily, with hypertension, allergic rhinitis, long-term tobacco use, and a right-bundle-branch block. After determining that the employee started coughing due to a personal medical condition, the employer denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits on March 22, 2024. At the time of the compensability hearing, the employee had not returned to work since the accident.

At the hearing, two medical experts testified. The employee's medical expert, Dr. Todd Brian Edminton, an orthopedic surgeon, opined that the employee experienced a severe coughing fit, an acute change in blood pressure, and a sudden increase in intracranial pressure, which caused the employee to pass out. Dr. Edminton considered the cause of the coughing to be multifactorial, possibly relating to the industrial environment, the inhalation of exhaust fumes, and the employee's underlying medical conditions. Dr. Edminton believed that the employee had suffered a traumatic brain injury from the accident.

The employer's medical expert, Dr. Amber Gordon, a neurosurgeon, explained that, in addition to acute bronchitis and allergic rhinitis, the employee had a preexisting heart condition described in his medical records as a right-bundle-branch block, meaning that half of the electrical current necessary to cause the heart to pump blood throughout the body in a synchronous manner was blocked. Dr. Gordon testified that the employee experienced vasovagal syncope secondary to a severe cough. According to Dr. Gordon, vasovagal syncope is

"a fancy medical term and essentially what it means is that the intrathoracic pressure rose when he had these multiple repeated coughing episodes and that, in conjunction with decreased output of blood from his heart, led to decreased blood flow going up to his brain and that is what resulted in him passing out."

Dr. Gordon testified that, at the time of the accident, the employee was suffering from acute bronchitis and coughing fits. Dr. Gordon said:

"That, in conjunction with his malfunctioning heart, led to him having deceased blood flow to his brain and that is what caused him to pass out thus having a wreck which led to a laceration, a very mild nondisplaced right frontal skull fracture, and a concussion."

The Judgment

In its findings of fact, the trial court determined that there was no forklift. By implication, the trial court found that the employee had not inhaled exhaust fumes that triggered his coughing episode. The trial court instead concluded that the employee had started coughing and had lost consciousness due solely to his preexisting medical conditions. The trial court nevertheless concluded that the employee was injured in an accident arising out of his employment.

In its conclusions of law, the trial court determined that the employment "need only be a contributing cause -- not the sole or dominant cause -- of an accident or injury to be compensable." The trial court further stated: "In determining whether an on-the-job injury arises out of the employment, the [c]ourt employs the increased risk test to determine whether the employment increases the risk of the accident or injury." The judgment further provided, in pertinent part:

"7. The increased risk test is satisfied if the employee demonstrates that in the performance of his job he was exposed to conditions of risk or hazard that he would not have been exposed to had he not been performing his job. Gold Kist v. Pope, 539 So.2d 291 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988).

"8. An accident arises out of the employment if the employment materially increases the risk that an accident will occur. See, e.g., Cummings Trucking Co. v. Dean, 628 So.2d 902 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (accident arose out of the employment where a truck driver exposed to fumes from diesel fuel became dizzy, fell, and broke his hip).

"9. An accident also arises out of the employment if the employment increases the risk of injuries from an accident by placing the employee in a dangerous position where the consequences of an accident would be more severe than otherwise. See, e.g., Hornady Transportation, LLC v. Fluellen, 116 So.3d 236 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) ([a]ccident arose out of the employment where truck driver was killed when he wrecked his truck after a possible coronary event); Gold Kist v. Pope, 539 So.2d 291 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) ([a]ccident arose out of the employment where employee with a possible seizure disorder fell from an estimated height of eight feet while taking inventory on top pallets of feed; the [c]ourt stated that 'it would appear to this court that taking inventory on top of an eight-foot stack of feed above a concrete floor exposes the employee to a risk or hazard that he would not have been exposed to had he not been performing his job'); Irby v. Republic Creosoting Co., 228 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1955) ([a]ccident arose out of the employment where employee suffered a spinal cord injury when he fell three-feet from platform after an epileptic seizure; the [c]ourt stated that 'the severity of the fall and the angle and position at which [the employee] struck the ground were directly influenced by['] his fall from three feet, one of the conditions of his employment.)

"10. Based on all of the for[e]going it is this [c]ourt's determination that [the employee]'s accident arose out of his employment because in the performance of his job he was exposed to conditions of risk or hazard that he would not have been exposed to had he not been performing his job, including but not limited to the operation of the buggy without an enclosed cabin in a commercial construction zone that caused or contributed to him fracturing his skull after losing consciousness from coughing."

The trial court concluded that the employee was entitled to temporarytotal-disability benefits until he reached maximum medical improvement, and it also ordered the employer to pay for his reasonably necessary medical expenses.

The Issue

The employer argues that the trial court erred in determining that the employee's accident arose out of his employment. The employer maintains that the trial court misstated and misapplied the...