Title: Ex parte Travis C. Aderhold. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Massey Chevrolet, Inc. v. Travis C. Aderhold) (Mobile Circuit Court: CV-05-3116.51, CV-05-3116.80; Civil Appeals : 2071082 , 2071089). Writ Denied. No Opinion.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL:5/22/2009
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009
____________________
1080560
____________________
Ex parte Travis C. Aderhold
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Massey Chevrolet, Inc.
v.
Travis C. Aderhold)
(Mobile Circuit Court, CV-05-3116.51, CV-05-3116.80;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2071082, 2071089)
SMITH, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, Parker,
and Shaw, JJ., concur.
Murdock, J., concurs specially.
1080560
2
MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in denying the petition for a writ of certiorari
filed by Travis Aderhold.  I do not wish, however, to be
understood as necessarily agreeing with the analysis in the
opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case.  Ex parte
Massey Chevrolet, Inc., [Ms. 2071082, January 23, 2009] ___
So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).  The Court of Civil Appeals
held that Aderhold's employer, Massey Chevrolet, Inc., was
liable under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act for paying
for procedures and treatments administered to Aderhold by
Dr. Charles Aprill to the extent that those procedures and
treatments were authorized by Dr. Chris Nichols.  Dr. Nichols,
however, was not Aderhold's authorized treating physician.
Consequently, the Court of Civil Appeals has gone further than
previous decisions of that court and of this Court in its
holding in this case.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Civil Appeals
correctly quoted Overnite Transportation Co. v. McDuffie, 933
So. 2d 1092 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), as follows:
"'[T]he employer is responsible for paying for the
treatment choice made by the authorized treating
physician so long as that choice falls within the
parameters of what is "reasonably necessary" to
1080560
3
treat the employee.  See Ex parte Southeast Alabama
Med. Ctr., 835 So. 2d 1042, 1046 n.4 (Ala. Civ. App.
2002).  This principle has been applied repeatedly
in cases in which the "treatment" recommended by the
authorized 
physician 
is 
a 
treatment 
to 
be
administered by a second physician.'"  
Ex parte Massey Chevrolet, Inc., ___ So. 3d at ___ (quoting
Overnite Transportation, 933 So. 2d at 1096 (emphasis added)).
The Court of Civil Appeals also noted the holding in Ex parte
Alabama Power Co., 863 So. 2d 1099, 1102 (Ala. Civ. App.
2003), that 
"'"the [authorized treating] physician is
empowered under the [Workers' Compensation] Act to treat the
employee for so long as is reasonably necessary and to refer
the employee to other medical providers for reasonably
necessary treatment."'"  ___ So. 3d at ___.
Dr. Nichols was not Aderhold's "authorized treating
physician" under the Act; Dr. Brendt Peterson was Aderhold's
authorized treating physician.  I do not wish to be
understood, therefore, as having concluded for purposes of
this case that Dr. Nichols had the authority to bind Massey
Chevrolet to pay for treatment by another physician.  The
authority upon which the Court of Civil Appeals bases its
conclusion, including those authorities quoted above, would
1080560
4
apply to Dr. Aprill only if he had been authorized by
Dr. Peterson to treat Aderhold.
In Overnite Transportation, the employer authorized
Dr. John Hackman to serve as the employee's treating
physician.  Dr. Hackman, in turn, referred the employee to
Dr. Edwin Kelsey for pain management.  The Court of Civil
Appeals held as follows:
"Consistent with this court's holding in Genpak
[Corp. v. Gibson, 534 So. 2d 312 (Ala. Civ. App.
1988),] and the other cases cited above, because the
treating 
physician 
prescribed 
treatment 
by
Dr. Kelsey, and because there is no evidence
indicating that that treatment did not fall within
the parameters of what was 'reasonably necessary' as
contemplated by § 25-5-77(a), [Ala. Code 1975,] that
treatment 
was 
authorized 
under 
the 
Workers'
Compensation Act.2
__________
" This case does not present the arguably
2
different question of whether McDuffie would be
entitled to reimbursement of the cost of being
treated by a physician to whom Dr. Kelsey, in turn,
might have referred him."
933 So. 2d at 1097 (emphasis added).
Massey Chevrolet has not sought certiorari review of the
Court of Civil Appeals' decision.  I concur in the decision to
deny the petition for certiorari review filed by Aderhold, the
employee.