Norandal U.S.A., Inc. v. Graben

• Decision Date: 20 February 2009
• Docket Number: 2061070.
• Citation: 18 So.3d 405
• Parties: NORANDAL U.S.A., INC. v. Welton GRABEN.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

18 So.3d 405

NORANDAL U.S.A., INC. v. Welton GRABEN.

2061070.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 20, 2009.

Claude E. Hundley III and Jeffrey T. Kelly of Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne, P.C., Huntsville, for appellant.

George Allen Moore of Johnston, Moore, Maples & Thompson, Huntsville, for appellee.

On Application for Rehearing

MOORE, Judge.

This court's opinion of October 17, 2008, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.

Norandal U.S.A., Inc. ("the employer"), appeals from a judgment awarding Welton "Sonny" Graben ("the employee") permanent-total-disability benefits under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-1 et seq., on account of a right-knee injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. We reverse the trial court's judgment.

Procedural History

On November 2, 1999, the employee filed a complaint against the employer seeking workers' compensation benefits. In that complaint, the employee alleged that he had twisted his right knee and had injured his "right leg and knee" on July 10, 1997, due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the employer. On November 12, 1999, the employer filed an answer generally denying liability for the injury.

The employee filed an amended complaint on January 29, 2002. In the amended complaint, the employee reasserted his earlier claims, added a second defendant, and alleged further that he had developed dermatitis and "other dermatological inflammations or disorders" from repeated exposure to formaldehyde and other chemicals or allergens in the course of his employment up to August 2001.¹ The employer filed an answer to the amended complaint on February 4, 2002, again denying liability.

After an ore tenus hearing on May 29, 2007, the trial court entered a judgment on July 12, 2007, awarding the employee permanent-total-disability benefits for his right-knee injury. The employer timely appealed.²

Facts

The facts pertinent to this appeal show that on July 10, 1997, the employee twisted his knee while pushing a drum of paint at work. The initial treating physician diagnosed a medial-meniscus tear and the aggravation of an arthritic condition in the employee's right knee. The employee eventually underwent three surgeries for those injuries, including an arthroscopic surgery on November 10, 1997, a partial knee replacement on October 24, 2001, and a "debridement and synovectomy of medial compartment, suprapatellar pouch and medial gutter" and "chondroplasty of the patellafemoral joint" on March 10, 2004. According to the employee and some of the medical records introduced into evidence, those surgeries did not eliminate the constant pain in the employee's right knee or the instability in the joint that sometimes caused his right knee to buckle.

The employee testified that on April 3, 2004, three weeks after his last surgery, his right knee gave way causing him to fall to the ground while on a personal errand. The employee testified that he initially fell on his right hand, injuring his right shoulder. He then fell on his left hip, causing severe pain in that area, as well as pain in his lower back. The employee was eventually diagnosed with a rotator-cuff tear, a contused left hip, and lumbar radiculopathy with associated left-foot drop. The left-hip problem resolved quickly, but the shoulder and lower-back problems persisted to the point that the employee underwent fusion surgery on his lumbar spine on March 30, 2005, and shoulder surgery on March 2, 2006. The employee did not inform the employer of the April 3, 2004, fall and never filed a claim on account of that accident.

The employee's attorney referred the employee to Dr. Shelinder Aggarwal, a physician who had not been authorized by the employer, for a medical examination on July 17, 2006. The employee related to Dr. Aggarwal that he used a cane to ambulate, and Dr. Aggarwal observed that the employee had an antalgic gait. Dr. Aggarwal testified that the way the employee walked indicated that the employee had pain in his right leg. According to Dr. Aggarwal, that pain would likely cause the employee pain in the low-back and hip area and would also preclude the employee from running, crawling, bending at the knee, squatting, and stooping.

At trial, the employee testified that his right knee continues to buckle and that he has poor balance. The employee stated that he cannot stoop or bend very much. He also testified that he cannot stand or walk very long without pain and that he has been using a cane, crutch, or walking stick since 2005. The employee testified that when he puts his right knee down, he feels severe pain from his foot to his lower back. His pain also extends from his right knee into his low back and hip. The employee rated his right-knee pain as 7 out of 10, with 10 being the worst. He also testified that the only time he gets relief from his right-knee pain is when he lays down and rests, as he does for two to three hours every day. Any active use of the right knee worsens his pain.

Issue on Appeal

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in awarding the employee nonscheduled permanent-total-disability benefits for his right-knee injury. The employer first contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding the employee nonscheduled benefits on account of his lower-back and right-shoulder injuries sustained in the April 3, 2004, fall. The employer secondly argues that the trial court erred in awarding nonscheduled benefits on account of what the trial court described in its judgment as "severe, throbbing, chronic, and sometimes sharp" pain in the employee's right knee that persists "even though [the employee] does not work and refrains from using the right leg to the extent he reasonably can do so...." See Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Johnson, 984 So.2d 1136, 1144-45 (Ala.Civ. App.2005), aff'd, Ex parte Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc., 984 So.2d 1146 (Ala.2007). On the other hand, the employee maintains that, even if the trial court erred in awarding nonscheduled benefits for the reasons set out in its judgment, this court may affirm its judgment on other valid grounds.

Standard of Review

"In reviewing pure findings of fact, the finding of the circuit court shall not be reversed if that finding is supported by substantial evidence." Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(2). "Substantial evidence" is "`evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.'" Ex parte Trinity Indus., Inc., 680 So.2d 262, 268 (Ala.1996) (quoting West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989)). See also Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12(d).

Conclusions of law are reviewed without a presumption of correctness. Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(1). So long as due process is satisfied, see Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. University of Alabama Health Servs. Found., P.C., 881 So.2d 1013, 1020 (Ala.2003), this court may affirm a correct judgment for any reason, even if the trial court did not rely on that reason in reaching its judgment. Chadwick Timber Co. v. Philon, 10 So.3d 1014, 1021 (Ala.Civ.App.2007).

Legal Analysis

For purposes of workers' compensation, a knee injury is treated as an injury to the leg. See, e.g., Wolfe v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 660 So.2d 1345 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). Injuries to the leg are ordinarily compensated under § 25-5-57(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975. Id. Pursuant to the schedule contained therein, an employee is entitled to 200 weeks of compensation for the total loss of use of a leg, §§ 25-5-57(a)(3)a.16. & 25-5-57(a)(3)d., Ala.Code 1975, but the number of weeks of compensation is reduced proportionately for a partial loss of use of the leg. See § 25-5-57(a)(3)d., Ala. Code 1975.

The compensation for the loss of use of a leg established in the schedule is intended by statute to be "in lieu of all other compensation." § 25-5-57(a)(3)d., Ala.Code 1975. However, by caselaw, an injury to the knee may be compensated outside the schedule "`if the effects of the loss of the member extend to other parts of the [employee's] body and interfere with their efficiency.'" Ex parte Drummond Co., 837 So.2d 831, 834 (Ala.2002) (quoting 4 Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 87.02 (2001)).

"Based on the holding in Ex parte Jackson, [997 So.2d 1038 (Ala.2007)], in order to prove that the effects of the injury to the scheduled member `extend to other parts of the body and interfere with their efficiency,' the employee does not have to prove that the effects actually cause a permanent physical injury to nonscheduled parts of the body. Rather, the employee must prove that the injury to the scheduled member causes pain or other symptoms that render the nonscheduled parts of the body less efficient."

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Jackson, 997 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). In order to prove that the loss of a member "interferes with the efficiency" of other parts of his or her body, a worker employee must prove that the normal effective functioning of another part of his or her body has been hindered or impeded due to the loss of the member. Id.

The trial court found that the injury to the employee's right knee caused by the July 10, 1997, work-related accident weakened that knee. As a result of that weakness, on April 3, 2004, the employee's right leg buckled and he fell, injuring his lower back and right shoulder. Under Alabama law, injuries received from a fall due to a leg weakened by a work-related injury are considered a direct and natural consequence of the original, compensable injury and are themselves injuries covered by the workers' compensation laws. See, e.g., Erwin v. Harris, 474 So.2d 1125, 1127 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). However, a worker may only recover compensation for such injuries by complying with the notice statute and the statute of limitations. See Gulf...