Page v. S. Care, Inc.

Decision Date16 September 2016
Docket Number2150451
Citation219 So.3d 660
Parties Tracy PAGE v. SOUTHERN CARE, INC.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

W. Whitney Seals of Pate & Cochrun, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellant.

Joseph H. Driver, Bricker S. Daughtry, and Michael C. Guarino of Carr Allison, Birmingham, for appellee.

MOORE, Judge.

This appeal arises out of a dispute as to the amount of mileage expenses to which Tracy Page ("the employee") is entitled for the years 2014 and 2015 under a 2008 judgment that approved a settlement between the employee and Southern Care, Inc. ("the employer"), pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 25–5–56, a part of the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"), Ala. Code 1975, § 25–5–1 et seq. The Etowah Circuit Court ("the trial court") awarded the employee only $560.51 of the $7,921.80 the employee claimed. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Background

The employee and the employer entered into a settlement agreement on December 10, 2008, which was approved by the trial court. In that settlement agreement, the parties memorialized that the employee claimed injuries to her neck and lower back resulting from work-related accidents occurring on February 14, 2005, and June 14, 2005, respectively. The employer agreed to pay the employee $75,566.67 to settle her claim for workers' compensation benefits. The settlement agreement further provided: "Employer will remain liable for all future medical benefits as required by the Workers' Compensation Act of Alabama which was in effect at the time of said accident."

On December 11, 2015, the employee filed a "motion to compel payment of mileage," which she later supplemented, in which the employee claimed, through supporting exhibits, that the employer had refused to pay her mileage expenses for travel to and from her physician's and pharmacist's offices in 2014 and 2015. After the employer filed a responsive memorandum opposing the motion, the trial court heard oral argument and entered an order on January 19, 2016, awarding the employee $560.51 on her mileage-expense-reimbursement claim. In support of its order, the trial court entered findings of fact, the pertinent portions of which provide as follows:

"[The employee's] current authorized treating physician, Dr. Robert Lansden, is located in Hoover, Alabama. Dr. Lansden was [the employee's] authorized treating physician for the relevant time period in 2014 and 2015. During the relevant time period in 2014 and 2015, [the employee] had her prescriptions filled at a pharmacy in Hokes Bluff, Alabama. [The employee's] current home address and her home address during the relevant time period in 2014 and 2015 is in Gadsden, Alabama. [The employee's] home address is approximately 86.5 miles away from her treating physician in Hoover, Alabama, and approximately 7.5 miles away from her pharmacy in Hokes Bluff, Alabama.
"[The employee] is not currently employed by [the employer] and was not employed by [the employer] during the relevant time period in 2014 or 2015. [The employee] is a nurse who currently works for a third-party at various locations outside of Alabama on a contract or temporary basis. During the relevant time period for which [the employee] has requested mileage reimbursement, [the employee] worked as a nurse in West Palm Beach, Florida, and Valdosta, Georgia. While [the employee] was required to travel to West Palm Beach, Florida, and Valdosta, Georgia, for work in 2014 and 2015, she returned home to Gadsden, Alabama, each weekend.
"According to [the employee's] request for mileage reimbursement, which was submitted as an exhibit to her Motion to Compel, her work location in West Palm Beach, Florida, was located approximately 744 miles from her treating physician in Hoover, Alabama, and 744 miles from her pharmacy in Hokes Bluff, Alabama. Her work location in Valdosta, Georgia, was located approximately 760 miles from her treating physician in Hoover, Alabama, and approximately 680 miles from her pharmacy in Hokes Bluff, Alabama. [The employee] did not request an alternative treating physician or alternative pharmacy during the relevant time period for which she requests mileage reimbursement.
"Between September 4, 2014, and August 18, 2015, [the employee] traveled a total of 13,912 miles between her work locations in West Palm Beach, Florida, and Valdosta, Georgia, and her treating physician in Hoover, Alabama, and pharmacy in Hokes Bluff, Alabama. Her total mileage for 2014 was 5,208 miles, and her total mileage for 2015 was 8,704 miles."

The trial court also entered conclusions of law as follows:

"Section 25–5–77(a) of the Alabama Code [1975] provides, ‘the employer ... shall pay an amount not to exceed the prevailing rate or maximum schedule of fees as established herein of reasonably necessary medical and surgical treatment and attention, physical rehabilitation, medicine, medical and surgical supplies, crutches, artificial members, and other apparatus as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.’ ... Subsection (f) of the same [C]ode section then provides [that] [t]he employer shall pay mileage costs to and from medical and rehabilitation providers at the same rate as provided by law for official state travel.’ Ala. Code [1975,] § 25–5–77 [ (f) ].
"The Alabama Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Civil Appeals have repeatedly held [that] ‘future medical expenses arising from the claimant's injury, which are shown to be reasonable and necessary and obtained with authorization of the employer , are to be paid by the employer.’ Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. v. Byrd , 659 So.2d 672, 674 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (citing Jones v. Pickens County Health Care , 589 So.2d 754, 756 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) ); see also Marley Erectors, Inc. v. Rice , 620 So.2d 31, 33–34 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) ; Ex parte Americold Compressors Co. , 684 So.2d 140, 143 (Ala.1996) ; Fort James Operating Co. v. Thompson , 871 So.2d 44, 48 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). It reasonably follows that mileage reimbursement requests for traveling to and from these medical providers must also be ‘reasonable’ and ‘necessary.’ See Davis Plumbing Co. v. Burns , 967 So.2d 94, 102 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (Moore, [J.,] concurring [in the result] ). As explained by Judge Terry Moore in a[n] opinion [concurring in the result] in Davis Plumbing , [a]n employee may not choose a pharmacy beyond a reasonable distance from his home simply to obtain additional mileage expenses .... When the workers' compensation law grants the employee discretion, such as the choice to refuse medical treatment or suitable employment, this court has always held that the employee must exercise that discretion within the bounds of reason.’ 967 So.2d at 102 (Moore, [J.,] concurring [in the result] ) (citing Baptist Mem'l Hosp. v. Gaylor , 646 So.2d 93 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) ; Kiracofe v. BE & K Constr. Co. , 695 So.2d 62 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) ).
"The Court accepts the facts asserted in [the employee's] Motion to Compel wherein [the employee] states she incurred round-trip mileage traveling from West Palm Beach, Florida, and Valdosta, Georgia, to her treating physician in Hoover, Alabama, and her pharmacy in Hokes Bluff, Alabama, as true. However, the Court concludes [the employee's] request for round-trip mileage reimbursements from her work locations in West Palm Beach, [Florida,] and Valdosta, Georgia, to her treating physician in Hoover, Alabama, and her pharmacy in Hokes Bluff, Alabama, are neither reasonable nor necessary.
"[The employee] was not employed with [the employer] during the time period for which she has requested mileage reimbursement. Instead, during the time period for which she requests mileage reimbursement, [the employee] voluntarily contracted with a third-party to be employed in West Palm Beach, Florida, and Valdosta, Georgia. Although [the employee] was required to travel out of state for work, at no point during the relevant time period did she request an alternative treating physician or alternative pharmacy. Moreover, [the employee's] job as a traveling nurse allowed her to return home to Gadsden, Alabama, each weekend, and [the employee] did, in fact, return home to Gadsden, Alabama, each weekend, irrespective of whether she had an appointment with her treating physician or needed to fill a prescription. Because [the employee] was home each weekend, sometimes as long as Thursday through Sunday, it is neither reasonable nor necessary for her to receive round-trip mileage reimbursement from [the employer] for traveling to her treating physician or pharmacy from West Palm Beach, Florida, or Valdosta, Georgia.
"[The employee] is, however, entitled to round-trip mileage reimbursement for the miles incurred in traveling from her home in Gadsden, Alabama, to her treating physician in Hoover, Alabama, and her pharmacy in Hokes Bluff, Alabama. [The employee's] total round-trip mileage from her home in Gadsden, Alabama, to her treating physician and pharmacy in 2014 is 391 miles. The applicable mileage reimbursement rate for 2014 is $0.56. Therefore, [the employee] is entitled to mileage reimbursement for 2014 totaling $218.96. [The employee's] total round-trip mileage from her home in Gadsden, Alabama, to her treating physician and pharmacy in 2015 is 594 miles. The applicable mileage reimbursement rate for 2015 is $0.575. Therefore, [the employee] is entitled to mileage reimbursement for 2015 totaling $341.55. The total mileage reimbursement to which she is entitled for 2014 and 2015 is $560.51."

The trial court entered a judgment for the employee in the amount of $560.51 and denied all other claims for relief.

On February 16, 2016, the employee filed a "second motion to compel payment of mileage" in which she sought to introduce her affidavit as evidence to support her claim. The trial court denied the motion on February 17, 2016. The employee timely appealed on February 24, 2016.

Discussion

The employee first argues that the trial court erred in construing Ala. Code 1975, § 25–5–77. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State Dep't of Revenue v. Coca–Cola Refreshments, U.S.A., Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 8 Septiembre 2017
    ...959 So.2d 69, 70 (Ala. 2006)." Ex parte Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 45 So.3d 764, 767 (Ala. 2009) ; see also Page v. Southern Care, Inc., 219 So.3d 660, 664 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) ("The construction of a statute ... involves a question of law that this court reviews de novo without a presumptio......
  • Jackson v. Brewer
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 25 Agosto 2017
    ...denied the motion to admit copies of the City ordinances, so they are not part of the appellate record.2 See Page v. Southern Care, Inc., 219 So.3d 660 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (holding that affidavit filed in connection with a postjudgment motion, which affidavit was excluded by court, could ......

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