Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Howe v. Choctaw Emergency Management Services
Citations: 725 So. 2d 978; 1998 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 652; 1998 WL 678077Docket: 2970645
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; October 2, 1998; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Willis Hull Howe filed a lawsuit against Choctaw Emergency Management Services for workers’ compensation benefits due to a lower back injury sustained on October 18, 1995, during his employment. The parties agreed that Howe suffered a work-related injury and was permanently partially disabled, but disagreed on whether this disability was linked to his on-the-job incident. The trial court concluded that Howe's disability was unrelated to his work injury and denied the benefits. Howe, employed as an executive director with occasional paramedic duties, injured his back while loading a patient into an ambulance. He was diagnosed by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Roger Setzler with a lumbar strain, who noted preexisting degenerative arthritis. After six months of treatment, Dr. Setzler opined that Howe's lumbar strain had resolved and that any ongoing disability stemmed from his preexisting condition, not from the work injury. In contrast, Dr. Andre J. Fontana, another orthopedic surgeon, acknowledged the work injury but stated it aggravated Howe's preexisting arthritis. However, he valued Dr. Setzler’s opinion due to his extensive treatment of Howe. The trial court favored Dr. Setzler's testimony as the most accurate regarding Howe's condition. Howe conceded he had prior back problems but claimed they did not hinder his job performance. Legal precedents indicate that employees with preexisting conditions can still receive benefits if their employment exacerbates or accelerates their disability. The appellate review confirmed that the trial court's finding—that Howe did not suffer permanent disability from the 1995 injury—was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the judgment denying the workers’ compensation benefits was affirmed. Howe contends that the trial court incorrectly denied him future medical benefits for his work-related injury. According to Jones v. Pickens County Health Care, a worker found to have incurred work-related injuries is entitled to future medical benefits under Code 1975, 25-5-77, provided certain conditions are met: the expenses must be related to the injury, deemed “reasonable” and “necessary,” and authorized by the employer. The trial court determined that Howe had fully recovered from his injury and that his current disability was unrelated, leading to the conclusion that no further medical treatment for the work-related injury was necessary. This finding contrasts with Ex parte Americold Compressors Co., where a prior ruling might have allowed future medical expenses despite a finding of full recovery, as the judgment did not explicitly prohibit such expenses. The trial court's conclusion regarding future medical benefits is supported by evidence and is upheld. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.