Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Foreman

Citations: 551 So. 2d 409; 1989 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 213; 1989 WL 71894Docket: Civ. 6860

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; June 28, 1989; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Billy A. Foreman sued Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for workmen's compensation benefits following a knee injury sustained during work on November 25, 1985. Foreman, 58, was unloading a heavy roll of stock using an electrical hoist when the roll kicked back and struck his knee. After failing to report the incident immediately due to not finding his supervisor, he sought medical attention while on vacation. Surgery was performed to address his knee issues, and he has been unable to work since.

The trial court conducted two hearings, ultimately finding that while Foreman failed to notify Goodyear of his injury within the required five days, the company received actual notice on January 2, 1986, when Foreman filed an accident form. Consequently, Goodyear was held liable for workmen's compensation benefits, medical expenses, and other allowances, but benefits were delayed until January 2 due to the lack of timely notice. The court ruled that Goodyear would not be responsible for medical expenses incurred before the January notice unless authorized. It was also determined that Foreman’s injury aggravated a pre-existing knee condition, which had not previously impeded his ability to work. Ultimately, the court deemed Foreman totally and permanently disabled and awarded him accrued benefits and future weekly payments for his disability.

Goodyear was ordered to cover Foreman's medical expenses, vocational rehabilitation, and related costs. Foreman's attorneys received a 15% fee on both accrued and future benefits, with amounts adjusted accordingly. The court's judgment indicated that the attorney's fee for future benefits was calculated to present value. The review process for workmen's compensation cases is limited, focusing on whether legal evidence supports the trial court's findings and whether the law was correctly applied. Goodyear challenged the trial court's determination of Foreman's permanent and total disability, arguing it stemmed from a pre-existing condition. However, the court retains discretion in assessing an employee's earning capacity based on the evidence, which included testimonies from Foreman, his doctor, and two vocational experts, supporting a finding of total disability. Despite Foreman having a pre-existing knee issue, evidence showed he had only missed minimal work prior to the accident, and the court concluded this condition did not hinder his work ability. Goodyear also contested the award of benefits due to Foreman's late injury report; however, precedent dictates that as long as the employer is notified within 90 days, the employee only forfeits benefits up to the notification time, negating Goodyear's argument.

The trial court appropriately penalized Foreman by denying benefits from the accident date until notice was given. Compensation was awarded from the date Goodyear received notice, which was within 90 days, and this decision was upheld. Goodyear contended that the trial court erred in requiring it to pay Foreman's medical treatment costs, arguing that the employer is not liable for expenses if the employee fails to notify the employer before seeking medical treatment. The court's initial order clarified that Goodyear was not liable for any medical expenses incurred by Foreman before December 9, 1987, and would only be responsible for future expenses if they were authorized. This provision was included in the final judgment, affirming Goodyear's liability solely for future authorized medical expenses.

Once an employee is deemed disabled, the employer is legally obligated to cover reasonable and necessary future medical expenses related to the injury. Goodyear's appeal also challenged the trial court's award of a 15 percent lump sum attorney's fee, claiming it was unsupported by evidence. The court found that Goodyear's argument misinterpreted the Supreme Court of Alabama's ruling in Ex parte St. Regis Corp., which allows employers to appeal fee awards only when the payments are not reduced to present value. Goodyear did not claim the fee should have been reduced to present value, only that the percentage was excessive. The law stipulates that the employee is responsible for the attorney’s fees, capped at 15 percent of benefits awarded. The trial court's establishment of the fee at 15 percent was within its authority, and the judgment was affirmed in all respects.