Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Morgan

• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
• Writing for the Court: THOMPSON.
• Citation: 830 So.2d 741
• Parties: WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. Shelby Jean MORGAN.
• Decision Date: 22 March 2002

830 So.2d 741

WAL-MART STORES, INC.
v.
Shelby Jean MORGAN

2001139.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 22, 2002.

830 So.2d 742

David K. Howard and Ryan G. Brake of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Florence, for appellant

David L. Martin III, Moulton, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Judge.

Shelby Jean Morgan sued her employer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"), on July 12, 1999, seeking to recover workers' compensation benefits. Wal-Mart filed an answer denying the material allegations of Morgan's complaint. Wal-Mart moved for a summary judgment, arguing that Morgan failed to present substantial evidence indicating the cause of her fall. The trial court denied Wal-Mart's motion for a summary judgment on December 5, 2000. Following an ore tenus proceeding conducted on April 24, 2001, the trial court entered a judgment finding Morgan permanently and totally disabled and awarding her benefits. Wal-Mart appealed.

The essential facts in this case are not disputed by the parties. The record indicates that Morgan began working for Wal-Mart in 1986. Morgan testified that the accident that caused her injuries occurred on July 26, 1997. At the time of the accident, Morgan was working as a cashier. She testified that she was returning to her cash register after assisting a customer when she lost her balance and fell. Morgan injured her hip in that fall.

Morgan and Wal-Mart's counsel engaged in the following exchange during the hearing in this case:

"Q. Now, let's talk about your fall a little bit, Ms. [Morgan]. You don't know what made you fall, do you?

"A. I just lost my balance.

"Q. Do you know what made you lose your balance?

830 So.2d 743

"A. No

"Q. Can you sit here and [say] what connected with your job duties and your workplace caused you to lose your balance?

"A. I had helped that lady. She needed assistance in the dressing room and I had asked [a coworker if she had] a key and then I went—she said the dressing room was unlocked so the lady went in and after that I started to go back to check.

"Q. How did your helping that lady make you lose your balance?

"A. I was just going back to the register and I lost my balance when I turned.

"Q. But it had nothing to do with your job duties your falling down, did it? Nothing to do with your job or your workplace had anything at all to do with causing you to fall down, did it?

"A. No, probably not.

"Q. Okay. And you could have just as well fallen at home for the same reason?

"A. Well, I never had.

"Q. Well, you never had, but you could, couldn't you?

"A. Probably.

"Q. Because you don't know why you fell. At that very moment you could have been at home and fallen and still wouldn't know the reason, you could have just as well been at home?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. So nothing to do with your work or your job duties had anything to do to cause you to fall?

"A. Well, in a way I think it did because I was working and I was on that tile.

"Q. But you don't know what made you fall?

"A. Not really. I didn't pass out or anything.... I knew everything that was going on. I wasn't sick."

Morgan testified that, after she fell, she felt pain in her hip. Morgan sought treatment from several physicians regarding her injuries. On March 20, 2000, Morgan had a total hip replacement. Patsy Bramlett, a vocational consultant, performed a vocational assessment of Morgan and concluded that Morgan was 100% vocationally disabled.

The trial court's judgment stated, in part:

"The evidence is undisputed that after helping a customer, [Morgan] turned to go back to her cash register, lost her balance and fell. [Morgan] also testified that it is possible that her foot slipped on the tile floor when she turned.... Therefore, the resultant injury can be traced to a proximate cause set in motion by the employment."

Because the facts in this case are, in relevant part, undisputed, the ore tenus standard does not apply to those undisputed facts, and this court does not afford the trial court's judgment a presumption of correctness. Gilbert v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 782 So.2d 786, 789 (Ala.Civ. App.2000) (citing Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365, 1372 (Ala.1994)); see also § 25-5-81(e)(1), Ala.Code 1975. Therefore, this court's review of the application of the law to the undisputed facts is de novo. Gilbert v. Tyson Foods, Inc., supra.

Wal-Mart argues on appeal that the trial court erred in finding that Morgan's injury arose out of her employment. In order for Morgan's injury to be compensable under the Workers' Compensation

830 So.2d 744

Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-1 et seq., it must be "caused by `an accident arising out of and in the course of'" her employment. Meeks v. Thompson Tractor Co., 686 So.2d 1213, 1215 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (quoting § 25-5-51, Ala.Code 1975). Wal-Mart argues that Morgan's injury was not compensable under the Act because, it argues, she did not establish a causal connection between the injury and her employment. The parties do not dispute that Morgan's fall occurred in the course of her employment, but Wal-Mart argues that Morgan's injuries were not caused by an accident that arose out of her employment. In order for Morgan's injuries to "arise out of" her employment, there must be "a causal relationship between the injury and the employment." Dunlop Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pettus, 623 So.2d 313, 314 (Ala.Civ. App.1993). Morgan has "the burden of proving that [her] injury arose...