Wilson v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1988
• Citation: 528 So.2d 338
• Parties: Ethel Lee WILSON v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, INC. Civ. 6209.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 338

528 So.2d 338

Ethel Lee WILSON v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, INC.

Civ. 6209.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 25, 1988.

Alfred Bahakel, Birmingham, for appellant.

Robert G. Tate and Deborah P. Fisher of Burr & Forman, Birmingham, for appellee.

L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.

Robert J. Wilson (employee) was an employee of American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Inc. (ACIPCO). The employee died while on the premises of ACIPCO in November 1983. Thereafter, Ethel Lee Wilson (Wilson), as executrix of his estate, filed a complaint seeking compensation as permitted under the workmen's compensation statutes. The complaint alleged that the employee died while acting within the line and scope of his employment.

ACIPCO answered, denying that the employee's death resulted from an accident or injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The answer also alleged that Wilson, as executrix, was not the proper party plaintiff.

Wilson amended her complaint to substitute Ethel Lee Wilson as dependent wife of the deceased employee for Ethel Lee Wilson as executrix. After a hearing, the trial court issued a written order wherein it found that a causal connection between the employee's death and the duties of his employment had not been proven. Wilson appeals.

Our review of workmen's compensation cases is by certiorari. § 25-5-81(d), Code of Ala.1975. This court reviews the evidence, but will neither weigh the evidence nor consider its preponderance. Our scope of review is limited to whether there is any legal evidence to support the findings of fact made by the trial court. Newman Brothers, Inc. v. McDowell, 354 So.2d 1138 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). In cases where there is evidence to support the findings of the trial court, such findings are conclusive even where there is conflicting evidence. Seay v. Alabama Power Co., 424 So.2d 1320 (Ala.Civ.App.1982).

The findings of fact of the trial court included: The employee, a 54-year-old male, was at his place of employment in November 1983, when he collapsed and died. Although he suffered from mild to moderate hypertension and diabetes, both conditions were under control as of September 1983, and there was no evidence of prior cardiovascular disease or other condition which could have caused or did cause his death. While pursuing his duties as a utility man, the employee climbed a series of steps to reach a level area from which he ascended a ladder to reach a platform approximately 50 feet from the ground. This climb was made at an unhurried pace with two co-employees, and there was no shortness of breath or expressed pain. The weather on that evening was temperate. The employee collapsed approximately five minutes after completing the climb and was rushed to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The cause of death was listed as "cardio-respiratory arrest," which means his heart and lungs ceased functioning. Each party presented medical testimony from doctors who admitted several possibilities as to the cause of death. The trial court found that while there was some evidence that the employee had suffered a heart attack, the evidence did not establish either legal causation or medical causation as set out in several cases, including Newman Brothers, 354 So.2d 1138, and City of Tuscaloosa v. Howard, 55 Ala.App. 701, 318 So.2d 729 (Ala.Civ.App.1975).

Wilson contends that the trial court erred when it found that the evidence did not support a finding that the employee's death was not compensable under the workmen's compensation statutes.

The legal causation and medical causation tests were set out as follows in Newman Brothers, 354 So.2d at 1140:

"[I]f in the performance of the duties of the job, 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 be legally determined to have arisen from the job and be termed an accident. It then must be determined whether the medical test of causation can be shown--i.e., did the conditions, danger or risks on the job precipitate or contribute to the injury?"

Dr. Thomas Riser, the medical expert offered by Wilson, testified that, in his opinion, the employee had died from a myocardial infarction brought about...