THE AL SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES LEGAL CAUSATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WORKERS’ COMP CASES

THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES LEGAL CAUSATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASES

The Alabama Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Ex parte Patton clarified legal causation requirements for workers’ compensation cases which were recently muddied by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. Ex parte Patton, 2011 Ala. Lexis 56 (Ala. Apr. 22, 2011).

Plaintiff Lana Brown, while walking to the company coffee pot, fell and broke her wrist. She was at work and she could offer no explanation for her fall. The plaintiff’s employer, Korner Store, denied plaintiff’s claim for benefits on grounds that the fall was not attributable to any work-related cause. In the lawsuit that followed, the trial court granted Korner Store’s motion for summary judgment based on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeal’s opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Morgan, 830 So. 2d 741 (Ala. 2002), a case with similar facts, which held that the occurrence of an injury, by itself, will not support a compensation claim.

On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s order on grounds that the Alabama Supreme Court, in Ex parte Byrom, 895 So. 2d 942 (Ala. 2004), held that a plaintiff seeking to establish legal causation need only produce substantial evidence tending to show that the alleged accident occurred. By doing so, the Court of Civil Appeals interpreted Ex parte Byrom as having significantly reduced a plaintiff’s burden to prove legal causation. The employer appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Alabama Supreme Court found itself in the position of having to explain away inconsistent language from its previous opinions. For instance, the Court acknowledged that in Ex parte Trinity Indus., Inc., it had described a reduced burden of causation when it wrote:  "An employee claiming to have been injured by a sudden and traumatic external event … need only produce substantial evidence tending to show that the alleged ‘accident’ occurred and tending to establish ‘medical causation,’ by demonstrating that the ‘accident’ was a contributing cause of the complained-of injuries and complications."  680 So. 2d 262 (Ala. 1996) (emphasis added).

The Court also acknowledged that it had reiterated this statement in Ex parte Byrom, when it stated that, “Ex parte Trinity Industries does not require proof beyond the fact of the accident itself that the accident arose out of the employee’s employment[.]” However, the Court refused to concede that its repeated statements were intended to lessen the burden of proof as to legal causation and, to the contrary, categorized these statements as dicta.

The Alabama Supreme Court’s opinion in Ex parte Patton clarifies that evidence of an injury alone is not sufficient to establish legal causation and evidence demonstrating that the injury arose from his or her employment was necessary. Ex parte Brown, 2011 Lexis Ala 56 at *17 (Ala. April 22, 2011). To hold otherwise, stated the Court, would be to improperly re-write the Workers’ Compensation Act. Id.