Robert Burton & Associates, Ltd v. Morris

• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Moore
• Citation: Robert Burton & Associates, Ltd v. Morris, 999 So.2d 927 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)
• Decision Date: 30 November 2007
• Docket Number: 2060802.
• Parties: ROBERT BURTON & ASSOCIATES, LTD v. David MORRIS.

999 So.2d 927

ROBERT BURTON & ASSOCIATES, LTD v. David MORRIS.

2060802.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 30, 2007.

Joseph H. Driver of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.

Stevan K. Goozée, Birmingham, for appellee.

MOORE, Judge.

Robert Burton & Associates, LTD ("the employer"), appeals from a judgment of the Calhoun Circuit Court awarding David Morris ("the employee") workers' compensation benefits under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, § 25-5-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the Alabama Act"). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Facts and Procedural History

The employee worked for the employer as a regional sales manager; the employee resided in Georgia and worked out of his home. As part of his job duties, the employee routinely traveled throughout Georgia, Alabama, and parts of Tennessee. On June 13, 2003, while in Alabama, the employee injured his back changing a flat tire on the company van he was driving to deliver the employer's products. Two weeks later, the employee filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The employer acknowledged that the employee's back injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, and it commenced making payments of benefits to the employee under the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, § 34-9-1 et seq., Ga.Code Ann. (2000) ("the Georgia Act"). The employer has been paying the employee Georgia workers' compensation and medical benefits since 2003.

The employee testified in his deposition that he understood that he had been receiving workers' compensation benefits under the Georgia Act since 2003. The employee further testified that he had retained an attorney in Georgia to assist him in expediting his claim for those benefits.

On November 17, 2006, the employee filed an action in the Calhoun Circuit Court ("the trial court") seeking workers' compensation benefits under the Alabama Act. The employee testified that the primary reason he had filed a claim for Alabama workers' compensation benefits was because of the delays he had experienced in obtaining medical benefits under the Georgia Act. The employer denied the claim, asserting that the employee had failed to timely file his claim for Alabama workers' compensation benefits. The employee claimed that the employer's payment of Georgia workers' compensation benefits to the employee had tolled the applicable statute of limitations in the Alabama Act. See § 25-5-80, Ala.Code 1975. The parties submitted the controversy to the trial court based on joint stipulations and the deposition of the employee.

On May 14, 2007, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the employee, concluding, as a matter of law, that the payment of Georgia workers' compensation benefits had tolled the Alabama statute of limitations. The trial court awarded the employee temporary-total-disability benefits relating back to the date of the original injury and ordered the employer to continue those payments until the employee reaches maximum medical improvement. The trial court also ordered the employer to pay all other workers' compensation benefits owed to the employee under the Alabama Act. The trial court certified its judgment as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.

Discussion

The issue for review is purely one of law to be reviewed without a presumption of correctness. See Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(1). That issue is: "When two states both have grounds for asserting jurisdiction over a claim for workers' compensation benefits, do payments of compensation made to the injured worker under the laws of one of the states toll the statute of limitations as to a claim later filed in the other state?" Houston Contracting Co. v. Young, 267 Ark. 322, 322, 590 S.W.2d 653, 653 (1979). Our research indicates that this legal question presents an issue of first impression in this state.

As with all questions of workers' compensation law, we begin our analysis with a review of the language of the Alabama Act. Alabama Code 1975, § 25-5-35(e), provides:

"The payment or award of benefits under the workers' compensation law of another state, territory, province or foreign nation to an employee or his dependents otherwise entitled on account of such injury or death to the benefits of this article and Article 3 of this chapter shall not be a bar to a claim for benefits under this article and Article 3 of this chapter; provided that claim under this article is filed within the time limits set forth in Section 25-5-80."

That section plainly provides that an employee who receives out-of-state workers' compensation benefits may nevertheless file a claim for Alabama workers' compensation benefits so long as the employee files his or her claim within the limitations period set out in the Alabama Act.

Section 25-5-80 generally provides that, in cases of accidental injury, an employee must file his or her claim within two years of the date of the accident. See Sagely v. ABC Rail Prods. Corp., 775 So.2d 230, 234 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). However, that section contains a tolling provision which provides: "Where, however, payments of compensation . . . have been made in any case, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the time of making the last payment." Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-80. Thus, although ordinarily the limitations period commences from the date of the accident, see Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Cahela, 251 Ala. 163, 167, 36 So.2d 513, 515 (1948), in cases in which an employer voluntarily pays compensation, the limitations period does not commence until the last payment of compensation is made. See B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Parker, 282 Ala. 151, 209 So.2d 647 (1967). In this context "compensation" refers to "[t]he money benefits to be paid on account of injury or death, as provided in Articles 3 and 4." Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-1(1).

The employer urges that the definition of "compensation" unambiguously provides that only payments made pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the Alabama Act would toll the statute of limitations; thus, payment of out-of-state benefits, which are not paid pursuant to Articles 3 or 4 of the Alabama Act, would not toll the Alabama statute of limitations. However, the language employed by the legislature is not totally free from ambiguity. On the one hand, the term "as provided in Articles 3 and 4" could mean, as the employer contends, that the payments must have been made pursuant to the schedules contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the Alabama Act. This construction would support a per se rule excluding payments of out-of-state compensation from having any tolling effect. On the other hand, the term "as provided in Articles 3 and 4" could mean "like the benefits provided in Articles 3 and 4" of the Alabama Act. By this interpretation, any monetary benefits paid to an employee on account of his or her injury that serve the same purpose and are payable in a similar fashion to the benefits payable under Articles 3 and 4 of the Alabama Act would toll the Alabama statute of limitations. Naturally, this latter interpretation could include out-of-state compensation benefits.

When faced with an ambiguity in the workers' compensation laws, our supreme court has consistently held that the Alabama Act should be liberally construed to effectuate its beneficent purposes. See, e.g., Cooper v. Nicoletta, 797 So.2d 1072, 1078 (Ala.2001). Our supreme court long ago held that the tolling provision in § 25-5-80 is based on the theory that the payment of compensation acts as an acknowledgment of liability that would justify an employee in forgoing the filing of a claim. See Moss v. Standridge, 215 Ala. 237, 238-39, 110 So. 17, 18 (1926). In Head v. Triangle Construction Co., 274 Ala. 519, 523, 150 So.2d 389, 393 (1963), the supreme court recognized that the tolling provision is designed to prevent an employer from lulling an employee into a false sense of security by acknowledging liability for his or her claim and then relying on the statute of limitations for relief from further liability. Consistent with this purpose, the appellate courts of this state have construed the term "compensation" broadly to include any payment that acknowledges liability for the injury, even payments not made pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the Alabama Act. See Head, supra (holding that wages may constitute "compensation"); and Belser v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 356 So.2d 659, 662 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978) (holding that payment of sick pay may toll statute of limitations).

However, the appellate courts of this state have been hesitant to adopt any per se rule that automatically qualifies certain payments as "compensation" for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations. See Head, 274 Ala. at 523, 150 So.2d at 393 ("On the other hand, this court would probably be hesitant to announce an absolute rule that wages paid under such conditions were always compensation that tolled the statute."). Instead, the courts of this state have preferred to adopt multipart tests to determine if, in fact, payments made outside of Articles 3 and 4 of the Alabama Act may properly be classified as "compensation" that would toll the limitations period. See Head, supra (adopting three-part test to determine if wages should be considered "compensation"); and Belser, supra (applying similar three-part test to determine if payment of sick pay should toll statute of limitations). These tests are designed to meet the purpose of the tolling provision by analyzing whether an employer knew or should have known that the payments were made to an employee on account of his or her injury; whether those payments acted as an acknowledgment of liability; and whether the employer paid the employee more than the value of the services received. Id.

In Auslander v. Textile Workers Union of America, 59 A.D.2d 90, 397 N.Y.S.2d 232 (1977), the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court noted the conflict among...