Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Grantham v. Amoco Fabrics Co.
Citations: 514 So. 2d 1385; 1987 Ala. LEXIS 4591Docket: 86-154
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; October 2, 1987; Alabama; State Supreme Court
A petition for writ of certiorari was filed by Donald Grantham concerning a judgment by the Court of Civil Appeals in a workmen’s compensation case against Amoco Fabrics Company. Grantham suffered a back injury after falling from his work station on January 31, 1983, while employed as an electrician. Medical evaluations by Dr. Joe Sanders and two neurologists revealed a congenital defect in Grantham's back but no permanent disability from the fall. After receiving a medical release on March 10, 1983, Grantham completed physical therapy but did not return to work or notify Amoco of his release. Dr. Sanders informed Amoco of Grantham's ability to work on April 18, 1983, and subsequently, Mr. Gene Shearl from Amoco instructed Grantham to return to work in a letter dated April 27, 1983, which he ignored. Grantham sought further medical advice without Amoco's knowledge or consent, and none of the new doctors notified Amoco of his condition. He argued that the Court of Civil Appeals' decision conflicted with its previous ruling in United States v. Bear Brothers, Inc., which addressed an employee's voluntary departure from employer-provided medical care. Grantham contended that he had valid reasons under Bear Brothers for seeking independent medical care, claiming Amoco neglected to provide necessary treatment, that notice for alternative care would be futile, and that other justifying circumstances were present. The core issue is whether there is evidence supporting the trial court's finding that Grantham's noncompliance with the relevant statute was unjustified, with specific reference to Amoco’s alleged refusal to provide medical care. Dr. Sanders opined that Grantham was fit to return to work as of March 28, 1983. Amoco had covered all medical expenses and provided full weekly disability benefits, fulfilling its obligations. Amoco expressed concern that Grantham did not return to work or communicate with them after learning of his fitness. Medical reports indicated Grantham's congenital back defect would not prevent him from working. Grantham did not contact Amoco regarding his condition or express dissatisfaction with his medical care. Amoco, believing Grantham was healthy since his discharge a month prior, reasonably assumed he did not need further medical care. Grantham's claim that Amoco’s refusal of medical treatment justified his seeking alternative care lacked support, as Amoco had not refused benefits until after receiving notice of Grantham's medical release. There was no indication from Grantham or his doctors that he required further care before that notice. Grantham's assertion of misdiagnosis by his doctors does not exempt him from the notice requirements of Code 1975. 25-5-77, which only allows exemptions in emergencies. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that none of the exceptions outlined in Bear Brothers applied in this case.