Saxon v. City of Mobile

• Decision Date: 03 November 1982
• Citation: 421 So.2d 1295
• Parties: Amy Lois SAXON, et al. v. CITY OF MOBILE, Alabama. Civ. 3239.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 1295

421 So.2d 1295

Amy Lois SAXON, et al. v. CITY OF MOBILE, Alabama.

Civ. 3239.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 3, 1982.

Horace Moon, Jr. and William G. Jones, III, Mobile, for appellants.

John L. Lawler, Mobile, for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case.

The Circuit Court of Mobile County denied benefits to the widow of the employee and she appeals. We affirm.

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether there is any evidence to support the finding of the trial court that the employee's death was not job related.

The pertinent facts are as follows:

In February, 1981, the employee, John Saxon, was employed by the City of Mobile as a policeman. In the early morning hours of February 4, Officer Saxon suffered a fatal heart attack while on duty.

Officer Saxon was off duty January 30, 31, and February 1. He returned to work February 2 and worked two hours as a witness. He then worked the evening shift February 2 beginning at 11:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 a.m. February 3. During the day of February 3, he worked as a witness for eight hours. He then returned home and slept for a time before returning to work at 11:00 p.m. February 3. At 3:30 a.m. the morning of February 4, Officer Saxon suffered a heart attack and died.

After Officer Saxon's death, Mrs. Saxon filed for workmen's compensation benefits. The trial court found that the normal progression of heart disease caused Officer Saxon's fatal heart attack and that his job "experience" cannot be related to the cause of his death with any degree of reasonable medical probability. This determination was obviously based upon a review of the evidence taken ore tenus and the deposition of a medical doctor.

In workmen's compensation cases the trial court's finding is conclusive if there is any evidence that will support it. Legg v. Americold Compressor Co., 336 So.2d 1121 (Ala.Civ.App.1976); Purser Steel, Inc. v. McEwen, 47 Ala.App. 263, 253 So.2d 56 (1971). This court can consider neither the weight of the evidence nor the propriety of the trial court's finding of fact. Our inquiry is limited to a determination of whether there is any evidence to support the trial court's finding. Kroger Co. v. Millsap, 280 Ala. 531, 196 So.2d 380 (1967); Tidwell Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy, 410 So.2d 109 (Ala.Civ.App.1982).

Mrs. Saxon, through able counsel, initially contends that the trial court erred by applying an incorrect test of causation to the facts of the case. We disagree.

The trial court relied on Strickland v. National Gypsum Co., 348 So.2d 497 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). In Strickland, the legal test was stated as follows:

"If in the performance of the duties for which he is employed an employee is exposed to a danger or risk materially in excess of that to which people not so employed are exposed, and an injury occurs, such injury may legally be determined to have arisen from his employment...."

348 So.2d at 499.

Applying the above stated test, in this instance, we cannot say the trial court erred.

This test was expounded upon further in Fordham v. Southern Phenix Textiles, Inc., 387 So.2d 204 (Ala.Civ.App.1980); and City of Tuscaloosa v. Howard, 55 Ala.App. 701, 318 So.2d 729 (1975).

In those cases, it is stated that the causation test can be separated into two distinct parts: legal and medical. Both of these must be satisfied in order to establish causation.

To establish legal causation the employee must show that in the performance of his duties he had to exert or strain himself or was exposed to risks or hazards in excess of that to which people not so employed are exposed. To establish medical causation the employee must show that the exertion or the exposure to certain conditions was, in fact, a contributing cause of her injury.

There is no argument as to the establishment of legal causation in the instant case. Although it is not set out specifically, it is clear from the record and the trial court's judgment and briefs that it is the issue of medical causation that provides the basis of this appeal. Put another way, it is the dispute over whether the strain and conditions of police work (the legal aspect of causation) contributed to Officer Saxon's fatal heart attack (medical causation)...