Phillips v. Opp & Micolas Cotton Mills, Inc.
Decision Date | 25 January 1984 |
Citation | 445 So.2d 927 |
Parties | Charles Harold PHILLIPS v. OPP & MICOLAS COTTON MILLS, INC. Civ. 3998. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Benton H. Person, Murphy & Murphy, Andalusia, for appellant.
J.M. Albritton of Albrittons & Givhan, Andalusia, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case.
Pertinent averments of the employee's complaint were that, while working on his job for the employer on February 8, 1974, he was accidentally injured. He last worked for the employer on November 25, 1975 and, after that date, the employer paid to him $6,649 for 84 6/7 weeks of temporary total disability. From November 25, 1975, to July 14, 1981, the last date of compensation payments to him, he was compensated weekly by his employer for a 25% permanent partial disability to his body as a whole. That permanent partial disability compensation totaled $4,214 for those 215 1/7 weeks. He contends that those weekly payments were incorrect in that they should have been based upon a 75% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. He sought the sum of $8,432 from the employer as being the difference between what his employer actually paid to him and the amount which he contends should have been paid. There is a lack of averment as to whether the employer commenced and paid the compensation voluntarily or whether the parties reached an agreement as to compensation to be paid to the employee; however, it is clear from the briefs of both parties that no court approved any settlement of the parties, if there was a settlement.
The employer moved to dismiss the action against it on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court entered a final judgment granting the employer's motion and dismissed the employee's cause. The employee appeals.
The position of an appellate court in reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss is, taking the allegations of the complaint most strongly in favor of the pleader, to determine whether the plaintiff could prove any set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Jones v. Lee County Commission, 394 So.2d 928 (Ala.1981).
Insofar as our extensive research and the briefs of counsel reveal, this is a case of first impression in Alabama. We must look to the Workmen's Compensation Act for guidance.
Where compensation payments have been made, the statutory limitation of one year within which an employee may file a complaint does not take effect until the expiration of one year from the time of the making of the last payment. § 25-5-80, Code of Alabama 1975; Cement Products Company v. Martin, 397 So.2d 149 (Ala.Civ.App.1981); Cunningham v. Milstead Pulpwood Company, 366 So.2d 737 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). The last payment of compensation in this case was alleged to have been made on July 14, 1981. The employee's complaint was filed on May 25, 1982, which was within one year from the date of the last payment of compensation. Accordingly, insofar as § 25-5-80 is concerned, the complaint was filed within the prescribed time.
The pivotal Code section is as follows:
From those provisions, the following principles appear or evolve.
If workmen's compensation payments are voluntarily made without court approval by an employer to an injured employee in the same weekly amounts and for the same period of time as are provided for a particular injury by the statute, those advance payments would fully pay the compensation obligation of the employer to the employee for that injury. However, if the monies so voluntarily paid without court approval amounted to less than the total amount which should have been paid under the statute, the employer would be liable to the employee for the difference between those total figures, and the employee could institute a timely civil action for that balance.
Under that Code section, the same rules and results would apply and occur if the making and acceptance of compensation payments were here construed to constitute a settlement between the parties. It has long been the rule in Alabama that a settlement by the parties for less than the amount established by the Workmen's Compensation Act must be approved by the court in order to be binding. Ex parte Central Iron & Coal Company, 209 Ala. 22, 95 So. 472 (1923). The statute so provides. In the meantime, however, the Act has been amended so that payments made pursuant to an inadequate settlement which was not court approved may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Miller Brewing Co.
...entitle the plaintiff to the relief requested. Jones v. Lee County Commission, 394 So.2d 928 (Ala.1981), Phillips v. Opp & Micolas Cotton Mills, Inc., 445 So.2d 927 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). In this case, the trial court, prior to the completion of discovery, granted each defendant's motion to di......
-
Garris v. Federal Land Bank of Jackson
...1030, 1037 (Ala.1990) (Kennedy, J., dissenting); Jones v. Lee County Comm'n, 394 So.2d 928 (Ala.1981); Phillips v. Opp & Micolas Cotton Mills, Inc., 445 So.2d 927 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Viewing the facts most favorably for the plaintiffs, we hold that there is a set of facts that could be prov......
-
Kennedy v. Cochran By and Through Cochran
...for less than the amount or benefits stipulated under the act must be approved by the trial court. Phillips v. Opp & Micolas Cotton Mills, Inc., 445 So.2d 927 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Thus, it would appear that if a party is prohibited from settling his claim against his employer for less than t......
-
King v. Calhoun Community College
...the plaintiff could prove any set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Phillips v. Opp & Micolas Cotton Mills, Inc., 445 So.2d 927, 929 (Ala.Civ. App.1984). The trial court stated that it dismissed King's declaratory-judgment complaint because, it said, the p......