Rodriguez-Flores v. U.S. Coatings, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 June 2013
• Docket Number: 1120099.
• Citation: 133 So.3d 874
• Parties: Fernando RODRIGUEZ–FLORES a/k/a Jose Edgardo Pizarro–Plaza v. U.S. COATINGS, INC.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

133 So.3d 874

Fernando RODRIGUEZ–FLORES a/k/a Jose Edgardo Pizarro–Plaza

v.U.S. COATINGS, INC.

1120099.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 28, 2013.

Scott W. Hunter, Daphne; and Robert E. Rone, Mobile, for appellant.

I. David Cherniak and J. Ben Segarra of Johnstone, Adams, Bailey, Gordon & Harris, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellee.

BOLIN, Justice.

Fernando Rodriguez–Flores a/k/a Jose Edgardo Pizarro–Plaza appeals from the order of the Mobile Circuit Court dismissing his claims alleging retaliatory discharge and fraud. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

Rodriguez–Flores was employed by U.S. Coatings, Inc., as a painter. He states that in “early” 2010 he suffered an injury to his right lower extremity while working in a dry dock. Rodriguez–Flores further alleges that on June 5, 2011, he became violently ill after being exposed to paint fumes and suffering from heat exhaustion. Rodriguez–Flores's employment was terminated on June 27, 2011. Rodriguez–Flores sued U.S. Coatings on September 26, 2011, seeking to recover worker's compensation benefits pursuant to the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, § 25–5–1 et. seq., Ala.Code 1975 (“the Act”); asserting a retaliatory-discharge claim pursuant to § 25–5–11.1, Ala.Code 1975; and also asserting fraud, wantonness, and tort-of-outrage claims. The first two counts of Rodriguez–Flores's complaint sought worker's compensation benefits for the injuries allegedly occurring in early 2010 and in June 2011. Rodriguez–Flores further alleged in his complaint:

“THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATORY DISCHARGE

“19. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant U.S. Coatings, Inc., wrongfully terminated [Rodriguez–Flores's] employment because he asserted a claim for workers' compensation benefits.

“20. Such action by [U.S. Coatings] violates the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, Ala.Code § 25–5–11.1 (1975).

“21. As proximate result and consequence of said conduct, [Rodriguez–Flores] has suffered substantial damage[ ], including but not limited to past, present and future lost earnings, stress and mental anguish. [Rodriguez–Flores] has also incurred substantial medical bills for the treatment of the underlying injury.

“WHEREFORE, Fernando Rodriguez–Flores, aka Jose Edgardo Pizarro–Plaza, demands judgment against U.S. Coatings, Inc., for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, together with interest and costs of Court.

“FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD

“....

“23. After [Rodriguez–Flores] made several visits to a company doctor following his leg injury in 2010, he was referred to another doctor who wanted to begin more aggressive treatments.

“24. [U.S. Coatings], through [Rodriguez–Flores's] supervisor, Jerry (last name unknown at this time), informed [Rodriguez–Flores] that he would be fired if he continued to seek treatment for his injury. [U.S. Coatings] also told [Rodriguez–Flores] that he was not entitled to be paid for time missed from work due to his injury. Jerry further instructed [Rodriguez–Flores] to tell the doctor that his injury was healed or [Rodriguez–Flores] would be fired. Finally, Jerry told [Rodriguez–Flores] that he was not entitled to be paid for time missed from work because of the injury and that [Rodriguez–Flores] was only entitled to be paid for hours actually worked.

“25. [Rodriguez–Flores], who does not speak English and who had no reason to believe that his supervisor was being dishonest with him, reasonably relied on his supervisor's statements and as a result discontinued his treatments and doctor visits and continued to work while in severe pain.

“26. As a direct result of his reliance on his supervisor's statements, [Rodriguez–Flores] continued to work while in severe pain, causing him to suffer severe physical, mental, and emotional pain and anguish.

“27. As a direct and proximate result of [U.S. Coatings'] fraud, [Rodriguez–Flores] continues to suffer severe physical, mental, and emotional distress and will continue to so suffer in the future.

“28. [Rodriguez–Flores's] supervisor made the statements to [Rodriguez–Flores] either willfully to deceive or recklessly, in order to convince [Rodriguez–Flores] to discontinue treatment for his injury.

“WHEREFORE, Fernando Rodriguez–Flores, aka Jose Edgardo Pizarro–Plaza, demands judgment against U.S. Coatings, Inc., for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, together with interest and costs of Court.

“FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION OUTRAGE/WANTONNESS

“....

“30. [U.S. Coatings] was aware that [Rodriguez–Flores's] authorized treating physician opined that [Rodriguez–Flores] suffered from a medical condition that was wholly caused by his on-the-job accident in early 2010.

“31. [U.S. Coatings] was aware that [Rodriguez–Flores's] authorized treating physician opined that [Rodriguez–Flores] was in severe pain due to the presence of his medical condition that was wholly caused by his on-the-job accident in early 2010.

“32. Despite having the foregoing knowledge regarding [Rodriguez–Flores's] medical condition, [U.S. Coatings] consciously disregarded [Rodriguez–Flores's] rights while aware that harm would likely result, refused to pay [Rodriguez–Flores] temporary total or partial disability benefits, and ordered him to discontinue treatment or be fired.

“33. The constructive denial of [Rodriguez–Flores's] request for treatment, under the foregoing circumstances, is conduct that is extreme, outrageous and intolerable in civilized society.

“34. As a direct result of the [U.S. Coatings'] refusal to grant [Rodriguez–Flores] the medical treatment to which he is entitled by Alabama law, [Rodriguez–Flores] has unnecessarily endured and will continue to endure in the future, severe bodily pain, mental anguish, and emotional distress.

“WHEREFORE, [Rodriguez–Flores] prays that the jury award compensatory damages for the damages [Rodriguez–Flores] has suffered as a result of [U.S. Coatings'] intentional, wanton and/or reckless conduct as well as punitive damages to punish [U.S. Coatings] for its intolerable conduct and to deter others from such wrongful conduct.”

On January 19, 2012, U.S. Coatings, relying upon Ex parte Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., 879 So.2d 577 (Ala.2003), moved the trial court to dismiss all state-law claims asserted against it, arguing that those claims were preempted by 33 U.S.C. § 905(a), a provision of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et. seq. (“the LHWCA”).

On February 8, 2012, Rodriguez–Flores filed a response in opposition to U.S. Coatings' motion to dismiss, arguing that the decision in Ex parte Bender Shipbuilding is distinguishable from this case because, unlike the employee in Ex parte Bender Shipbuilding, Rodriguez–Flores had not sought or received benefits under the LHWCA and that the remedies he was seeking were completely within Alabama statutory and common law. Rodriguez–Flores further argued that, based upon the facts of this case, he had the option, pursuant to Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 447 U.S. 715, 100 S.Ct. 2432, 65 L.Ed.2d 458 (1980), to seek benefits under the LHWCA or under Alabama's workers' compensation scheme and that he has chosen to seek benefits under the Act.

On March 1, 2012, Rodriguez–Flores supplemented his response in opposition to the motion to dismiss by submitting additional argument in opposition to the motion, as well as his affidavit. Rodriguez–Flores acknowledged in his supplemental response that accidental, negligent, and reckless acts by an employer cannot justify bringing a tort claim against the employer in a state court if the basis of the tort is within the scope of the LHWCA. However, he argued that the courts have recognized an exception to the exclusive-liability provision of § 905(a), “where the injury inflicted is the result of an intentional act.” Houston v. Bechtel Assocs. Prof'l Corp. D.C., 522 F.Supp. 1094, 1096 (D.D.C.1981). He argued that the facts presented here, which, he says, indicate that U.S. Coatings intended with actual malice to harm him both physically and financially, fall within that recognized exception.

Rodriguez–Flores also argued that, given the alleged conduct of U.S. Coatings in this case, he should be allowed to pursue his retaliatory-discharge claim brought pursuant to § 25–5–11.1, Ala.Code 1975, because the relief provided him by the LHWCA is inadequate as it can result only in a small penalty being levied against U.S. Coatings, whereas he is entitled to recover punitive damages and compensation for mental anguish in a retaliatory-discharge claim brought pursuant to § 25–5–11.1.

On March 11, 2012, the trial court entered the following order:

“This matter is before the Court on the Motion of [U.S. Coatings] to Dismiss all of [Rodriguez–Flores's] claims on the grounds that they are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (‘LHWCA’), 33 U.S.C. Section 905(a).

“After considering the pleadings, briefs, and arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the Motion is due to be GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART.

“Counsel for [Rodriguez–Flores] concedes that his client ‘has the choice of seeking benefits from either the LHWCA or the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act.’ However, he also argues that the injuries ‘were outside the navigable waters of the United States.’ Because the LHWCA provides at least concurrent coverage for the injuries of [Rodriguez–Flores], the Court finds that the reasoning of Ex parte Bender Shipbuilding [ & Repair Co.], 879 So.2d 577 [ (Ala.2003) ], bars his tort claims. Because the record is not clear as to where [Rodriguez–Flores] may have been injured, the Court cannot say that the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act does not provide concurrent coverage for his claim to worker's compensation benefits.

“For the foregoing reasons, [U.S. Coatings'] Motion to...