Case ID: so2d_733/html/0427-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THOMPSON, Judge. MONROE, Judge, YATES, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Craig David GIBSON v. BIRMINGHAM BARRACUDAS.
    2971056.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 12, 1999.
    Rehearing Denied April 9, 1999.
    Robert W. Lee, Jr., and Wendy N. Thornton of Robert W. Lee & Associates, Birmingham, for appellant.
    David M. Wilson and Nicholas W. Wood-field of Janecky, Newell, Potts, Wilson, Masterson & Smith, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
   THOMPSON, Judge.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R.App.P.; §§ 25-5-1(7), 25-5-1(9), and 25-5-80, Ala.Code 1975; and Ex parte Trinity Indus., Inc., 680 So.2d 262 (Ala. 1996).

CRAWLEY, J., concurs.

MONROE, J., concurs specially.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J., dissent.

MONROE, Judge,

concurring specially.

In accordance with my dissent in American Cyanamid v. Shepherd, 668 So.2d 26 (Ala.Civ.App.1995), I agree with this court’s conclusion that Gibson’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is barred by the statute of limitations.

YATES, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. I find the issue presented in this case indistinguishable from the issue presented in American Cyanamid v. Shepherd, 668 So.2d 26 (Ala.Civ.App.1995), and I consider the rationale of American Cyanamid to be dispositive of the issue raised in this case. In affirming, the majority rigidly applies the limitations provisions of the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act and ignores the beneficent purposes of that Act.

ROBERTSON, P.J., concurs.