Metals USA Plates & Shapes Southeast, Inc. v. Conner

Citations: 78 So. 3d 428; 2011 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 216; 2011 WL 3528436Docket: 2090800 and 2091020

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; August 12, 2011; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalIn Part Opinion AnalysisIn Part Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Mobile Circuit Court ruled that Albert Conner was permanently and totally disabled due to a workplace accident, prompting Metals USA Plates and Shapes Southeast, Inc. to appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, citing the trial court's noncompliance with § 25-5-88, Ala.Code 1975. On September 14, 2005, Conner sustained injuries while assisting in loading angle iron on a trailer when it shifted and crushed his ankle. There were conflicting accounts of the incident: Conner claimed he fell five feet to the ground after his ankle was crushed, while coworker Morris Sullivan testified that Conner was lowered two feet and landed in a sitting position. Conner was diagnosed with a bimalleolar fracture and underwent surgery to repair it, followed by a second surgery to remove a painful screw. In his January 18, 2006 complaint, Conner only alleged injury to his right foot, and during his September 6, 2006 deposition, he did not reference any other injuries except for some vague shoulder pain, which he could not definitively link to the accident.

Conner did not seek medical attention for shoulder pain following his injury and surgery related to his foot. He amended his complaint on June 14, 2007, to correct the employer's name but did not alter his claims. On April 8, 2008, he requested the trial court to compel the employer to provide a panel of four physicians, alleging his foot injury necessitated crutches for twelve months, leading to shoulder injury. Conner expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Conrad’s refusal to treat his shoulder. The trial court granted this request on April 15, 2008. In response, the employer sought to withdraw the order, arguing it had not been able to respond before the ruling and denied that Conner's shoulder injury was work-related. The employer contended that Conner's claims did not specify a workplace accident causing his shoulder injury. Dr. Conrad, a shoulder specialist, testified that he was unaware of crutches causing shoulder injuries. The trial court later withdrew its prior order and scheduled a hearing on compensability for the shoulder injury. On July 25, 2008, the court re-ordered the employer to provide a panel of physicians but requested a hearing on compensability for the shoulder injury. The employer petitioned for a writ of mandamus, which was denied with the condition that the order did not imply treatment for the shoulder. During the trial on Conner's complaint in November 2009, he testified that he sustained shoulder pain after falling from a trailer following his ankle injury, with pain first noted in November 2005 and lower-back pain starting mid-2008.

Dr. Robert Zarzour, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that there is a strong link between an altered gait and lower-back pain. Conner, the claimant, did not include shoulder or lower-back injuries in his initial or amended complaints. The employer argued in its posttrial brief that these claims were barred by the statute of limitations, as Conner did not file them within two years of his September 14, 2005 accident. Conner presented two theories for his shoulder and lower-back injuries: one linked them to using crutches due to an altered gait, and the other suggested they resulted from three injuries sustained in the accident, specifically an ankle injury, a shoulder injury from a fall, and a lower back injury from a fall.

The trial court ruled on April 22, 2010, that Conner was totally and permanently disabled. Findings included that Conner suffered a bimalleolar ankle fracture during a work accident and that the employer had timely notice of the incident. Conner first experienced shoulder pain about two months post-accident, which worsened with crutch use, and began to notice lower back pain in mid to late 2008. It was noted that Conner walked slowly with an antalgic gait and needed a cane. Dr. Zarzour indicated that Conner’s lumbar issues were related to the trauma from his ankle injury and fall.

The trial court concluded that Conner’s right ankle and shoulder injuries arose from the same work accident and that the prolonged use of crutches aggravated his shoulder injury. The court highlighted that if a worker’s compensation claimant establishes an initial injury related to their employment, all direct consequences of that injury are also considered work-related.

The Court determined that the aggravation of Conner's right shoulder injury is a natural progression stemming from the initial work-related injuries and confirmed that Conner’s shoulder injury is compensable. Conner provided substantial evidence of chronic pain in his ankle and lower back, with the back pain resulting from a change in his gait due to the ankle injury. The trial court acknowledged Conner's Motion to Tax Costs, with a hearing set for April 30, 2010. Any costs incurred by Conner that may be taxed against the employer will be addressed in a separate order after the hearing. The trial court did not make findings on the employer's statute of limitations argument. Following an appeal by the employer on May 24, 2010, the trial court ordered Conner's costs to be taxed at $5,551.56 on May 25, 2010, and later granted an additional $2,085 on June 14, 2010. The employer filed a second appeal, which was consolidated with the first. The employer challenges the trial court's judgment for lacking sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding notice and the statute of limitations relevant to Conner's injuries. Legal precedents emphasize the necessity for the trial court to make explicit findings on all litigated issues, and failure to do so may result in a reversal. Despite a lack of findings regarding the notice issue in prior cases leading to reversals, the trial court did confirm that the employer received appropriate notice of the shoulder injury, fulfilling the requirements of Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-88.

The trial court did not make specific findings regarding notice related to Conner’s lower-back injury but concluded that his chronic back pain resulted from an altered gait due to an ankle injury. Citing Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell and Beatrice Foods Co. v. Clemons, the court noted that once an employer has actual knowledge of an injury, further notice is not mandatory if there is a reasonable medical connection between the injuries. The trial court found that Conner had given the employer actual notice of his ankle injury, establishing a reasonable medical link to his lower-back injury, negating the need for explicit notice of the back injury. Despite the trial court's lack of express findings on notice, this did not warrant reversal.

However, the trial court failed to address the statute-of-limitations issue concerning Conner’s claims for shoulder and lower-back injuries. The court has a duty to make findings on all litigated issues, and the absence of such findings necessitates a reversal. Consequently, the judgment is reversed and remanded for the trial court to make appropriate findings regarding the statute of limitations, which may also affect the judgment on costs awarded to Conner. The document also discusses the nature of Conner's ankle injury, specifically a bimalleolar fracture, and cites Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-80, outlining the statute of limitations for personal injury claims. As a result of the reversal regarding the statute of limitations, further arguments raised by the employer were not addressed.