Mobile Paint Mfg. Co. v. Crowley
| Decision Date | 31 December 1975 |
| Citation | 325 So.2d 182,56 Ala.App. 673 |
| Parties | MOBILE PAINT MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. David A. CROWLEY. Civ. 668. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Michael D. Knight, Mobile, for petitioner.
Cunningham, Bounds & Byrd, Mobile, for respondent.
This is a workmen's compensation case from the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama.
The trial court in its decree found that the plaintiff-appellee, David A. Crowley, sustained a 50% Permanent partial disability and a corresponding loss of earning capacity. The disability resulted from an accident which occurred in the course of his employment with Mobile Paint Manufacturing Company. The trial court ordered that Crowley recover of the employer $55 per week for 271 weeks as compensation. The employer appeals from this decree.
The issues before us are whether certain erroneous findings of fact in the trial court's decree require the remand of this cause and whether there is any evidence to sustain the trial court's determination that Crowley suffered a 50% Permanent partial disability and corresponding loss of earning capacity.
The tendencies of the evidence as revealed by the record are as follows:
Plaintiff-appellee David A. Crowley graduated from Tulane University in June of 1969 with a B.S. degree in chemistry and began work in July as an industrial chemist with the employer, defendant-appellant Mobile Paint Manufacturing Company. His duties required him to load a paint mill approximately once a week. The loading process entails lifting the mill, which weighs approximately 175 pounds.
On or about May 15, 1970, Crowley experienced sudden pain in his lower back while he was lifting the mill. He continued to experience persistent, severe back pain throughout the next two months, and in July if 1970 he sought the assistance of Dr. Lloyd Russell, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Russell diagnosed Crowley as suffering from a spondylolysis at the lowest lumbar vertebra, meaning essentially that there was a congenital defect of that vertebra, and from ruptured discs. The disc rupture had occurred when Crowley lifted the paint mill. He prescribed that Crowley wear a supportive back brace and instructed him in techniques designed to protect and strengthen his back.
These measures failed to improve Crowley's condition. With the exception of loading paint mills, he was able to perform his job duties as before, but he was occasioned considerable pain by the fact that these duties required him to stand for much of his work day. Dr. Russell finally advised Crowley that the only treatment which could provide him with relief would be a spinal fusion and disc excision. In April of 1971, he underwent surgery for those purposes.
Crowley was hospitalized for thirty-one days recuperating from the operation and underwent an extended period of convalescence during which his activities were extremely restricted. He did not return to his job after the surgery, and in August of 1971, he entered the University of Alabama Law School. When the employer failed to pay Crowley the workmen's compensation benefits to which he considered himself entitled, this litigation ensued.
The trial court in its decree made detailed findings of fact as required by Tit. 26, § 304, Code of Ala. 1940. Specifically found were that Crowley suffered a fractured vertebra and that he had not been gainfully employed since the accident which caused his injury.
As noted above, the evidence tends to show that Crowley's injury was a ruptured disc rather than a fractured vertebra. Furthermore, the evidence shows without dispute that Crowley worked between the times of the accident and his subsequent surgery, terminating his employment only after the operation.
The employer, through able counsel who has favored this court with an excellent brief, contends that these erroneous findings of fact in the trial court's decree are fatal to Crowley on this appeal. For the reasons stated below, we do not agree.
While we are not unmindful of the cases holding that findings unsupported by any legal evidence cannot be made the basis for an award of compensation, this principle cannot be properly applied to the instant case....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackmon v. R. L. Zeigler Co., Inc.
...any fact found by the trial court, but simply look to see if there is any evidence to support those findings. Mobile Pain Mfg. Co. v. Crowley, 56 Ala.App. 673, 325 So.2d 182 (1975). That is to say, where there is conflicting testimony in a workmen's compensation proceeding, and there is evi......
-
Allen v. Metro Contract Services, Inc.
...factors were used to support a finding of 50% disability where the physical disability was only 20%. Mobile Paint Manufacturing Co. v. Crowley, 56 Ala.App. 673, 325 So.2d 182 (1975). Not only do we not find any legal support for using these factors to diminish compensation, but we find comm......
-
Health-Tex, Inc. v. West
...284 Ala. 311, 224 So.2d 664 (1969); Woodward Iron Co. v. Jones, 217 Ala. 361, 116 So. 525 (1928); Mobile Paint Mfg. Co. v. Crowley, 56 Ala.App. 673, 325 So.2d 182 (1975). The weight of the evidence before the trial court is not before this court on appeal in a workmen's compensation case. H......
-
Den-Tal-Eze Mfg. Co. v. Gosa, DEN-TAL-EZE
...to support its conclusion of total and permanent disability. Carroll Construction Co. v. Hutcheson, supra; Mobile Paint Mfg. Co. v. Crowley, 56 Ala.App. 673, 325 So.2d 182 (1975). Appellants, however, argue that evidence showing the employee refused work as an insurance salesman and that he......