Title: West Fraser, Inc. v. Caldwell

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 07/20/2012-
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
SPECIAL TERM, 2012 
1110513 
Ex parte Windell Caldwell, 
Sr. 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS 
(In r e : West Fraser, 
Inc. 
v. 
Windell Caldwell, 
Sr.) 
(Lee C i r c u i t Court, CV-10-900048; 
Court of C i v i l Appeals, 2100696) 
STUART, J u s t i c e . 
1110513 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
i s s u e d 
a w r i t 
o f 
c e r t i o r a r i 
t o 
d e t e r m i n e 
whether 
the d e c i s i o n of the C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s i n West 
F r a s e r , I n c . v. C a l d w e l l , [Ms. 2100696, J a n u a r y 13, 2012] 
So. 
3d ___ 
( A l a . 2 0 1 2 ) , 
c o n f l i c t s 
w i t h 
the parameters 
o f 
a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w s e t out i n 
Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , 47 So. 3d 767 
( A l a . 2008) . 
We 
c o n c l u d e t h a t i t does, and we 
r e v e r s e 
and 
remand. 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
On 
J a n u a r y 29, 2010, 
W i n d e l l C a l d w e l l , S r . , sued West 
F r a s e r , 
I n c . , s e e k i n g worker's 
compensation 
b e n e f i t s f o r a 
back i n j u r y he a l l e g e d l y s u s t a i n e d w h i l e i n the l i n e and scope 
of 
h i s employment. 
On 
March 
8, 
2011, 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
c o n d u c t e d 
a 
h e a r i n g , 
a t 
which 
ore 
tenus 
e v i d e n c e 
was 
p r e s e n t e d , t o d e t e r m i n e the s o l e i s s u e whether the i n j u r y was 
compensable. 
A t the h e a r i n g , C a l d w e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t on December 17, 
2009, he 
r e p o r t e d 
t o work and 
was 
a s s i g n e d 
the 
t a s k 
of 
r e p l a c i n g the " k n i v e s " on a m u l c h i n g machine. 
A c c o r d i n g 
t o 
C a l d w e l l , 
i n o r d e r 
t o complete 
the t a s k he had t o 
l i f t 
2 
boxes, 
each 
w e i g h i n g 
50-100 
pounds, 
and move 
a 
s c r e e n , 
w e i g h i n g 80 pounds. 
C a l d w e l l 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he 
c o u l d 
not 
2 
1110513 
complete the t a s k because w h i l e he was p e r f o r m i n g 
the t a s k he 
f e l t 
t h r e e 
" p i n c h e s " 
i n h i s back, 
c a u s i n g 
him 
p a i n . 
He 
i n f o r m e d h i s s u p e r v i s o r , Bobby 
H i l l , 
t h a t he was 
s u f f e r i n g 
from back p a i n and t h a t he was 
l e a v i n g work t o see a d o c t o r . 
Unable t o 
d r i v e , 
C a l d w e l l 
c o n t a c t e d 
h i s w i f e , Rhonda, 
who 
p i c k e d 
him 
up 
and 
drove 
him 
t o 
Auburn 
Urgent 
Care, 
a 
f r e e s t a n d i n g emergency m e d i c a l 
c l i n i c . 
A c c o r d i n g t o 
t e s t i m o n y 
from b o t h C a l d w e l l and Rhonda, t h e y i n f o r m e d the m e d i c a l 
s t a f f 
a t Auburn Urgent Care t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s back p a i n was the 
r e s u l t 
of an i n j u r y t h a t had o c c u r r e d a t work. 
The m e d i c a l 
r e c o r d s 
from t h a t v i s i t , however, c o n t a i n e d a n o t a t i o n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t 
"no 
i n j u r y " was 
r e p o r t e d . 
C a l d w e l l 
f u r t h e r 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
on December 19, 
2009, 
because h i s back p a i n was 
not s u b s i d i n g , he had Rhonda d r i v e 
him 
t o the emergency room a t E a s t Alabama M e d i c a l 
C e n t e r . 
C a l d w e l l and Rhonda t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y t o l d the m e d i c a l 
s t a f f 
a t E a s t Alabama M e d i c a l C e n t e r t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s back p a i n 
was 
caused by a w o r k - r e l a t e d i n j u r y . 
The m e d i c a l r e c o r d s f o r t h a t 
day's 
v i s i t , 
however, 
i n d i c a t e d 
t h a t 
C a l d w e l l 
" d e n i e [ d ] 
i n j u r y . " 
3 
1110513 
C a l d w e l l 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t on December 21, 2009, he 
a g a i n 
v i s i t e d Auburn Urgent Care. 
The 
m e d i c a l 
r e c o r d s 
from 
t h a t 
v i s i t r e f e r e n c e d an " i n j u r y 
[on] 12/17." 
On December 22, 2009, C a l d w e l l i n f o r m e d West F r a s e r , v i a 
a f a c s i m i l e t r a n s m i s s i o n from h i s c o u n s e l , t h a t he had 
i n j u r e d 
h i s back a t work on December 17, 2009. 
The 
d e p o s i t i o n 
t e s t i m o n y 
of 
Dr. 
D a v i d 
S c o t t , 
an 
o r t h o p a e d i c 
surgeon who 
t r e a t e d C a l d w e l l , was 
a d m i t t e d 
i n t o 
e v i d e n c e . 
Dr. 
S c o t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s 
i n j u r i e s were 
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the 
l i f t i n g 
i n c i d e n t C a l d w e l l had 
d e s c r i b e d 
o c c u r r i n g a t work b u t t h a t the i n j u r y a l s o c o u l d have o c c u r r e d 
i n a number of ways. 
West F r a s e r p r e s e n t e d 
t e s t i m o n y 
from two 
of 
C a l d w e l l ' s 
s u p e r v i s o r s and a coworker. 
H i l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t when C a l d w e l l 
i n f o r m e d him 
on December 17, 2009, t h a t he was 
l e a v i n g work 
because he was 
e x p e r i e n c i n g back p a i n , C a l d w e l l d i d not 
say 
how 
he had 
i n j u r e d h i s back or t h a t the 
i n j u r y was 
a work-
r e l a t e d 
i n j u r y . 
W i l b e r t 
" B u t c h " McCants, 
a 
coworker 
of 
C a l d w e l l ' s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was w o r k i n g near C a l d w e l l on the 
day 
of the a l l e g e d i n j u r y and t h a t he d i d not hear C a l d w e l l 
say 
t h a t he 
had been i n j u r e d or t h a t he 
was 
i n p a i n . 
He 
4 
1110513 
e x p l a i n e d t h a t he 
l a t e r l e a r n e d t h a t C a l d w e l l was 
s u f f e r i n g 
from back p a i n . 
McCants a d m i t t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h C a l d w e l l 
had 
c o m p l a i n e d of back p a i n i n the p a s t , he d i d not know whether 
the back p a i n C a l d w e l l was 
s u f f e r i n g when he 
l e f t work 
was 
caused by 
a work 
i n j u r y 
or 
by some o t h e r 
i n j u r y . 
James 
" C h r i s " B a k e r , a n o t h e r s u p e r v i s o r , t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t , when 
he 
l e a r n e d t h a t C a l d w e l l was 
out on m e d i c a l l e a v e , he t e l e p h o n e d 
C a l d w e l l 
t o 
i n v e s t i g a t e 
h i s 
c o n d i t i o n . 
He 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
C a l d w e l l i n f o r m e d him 
t h a t he had h u r t h i s back and t h a t i t 
had been b o t h e r i n g 
him 
f o r s e v e r a l weeks. 
Baker 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
he 
had 
no knowledge 
of 
how 
C a l d w e l l 
had 
i n j u r e d h i s 
b a c k .
1 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
h e l d 
t h a t 
C a l d w e l l 
had 
s u f f e r e d 
a 
compensable i n j u r y , s t a t i n g i n a w r i t t e n 
o r d e r : 
"The 
C o u r t 
h e a r d 
t e s t i m o n y 
from 
s e v e r a l 
w i t n e s s e s 
r e g a r d i n g whether [ C a l d w e l l ' s ] i n j u r y 
was 
w o r k - r e l a t e d . 
The 
t e s t i m o n y 
b e f o r e 
the C o u r t 
was 
t h a t 
[ C a l d w e l l ] was 
i n j u r e d on December 17, 
2009, 
w h i l e c h a n g i n g the ' k n i v e s ' on a p i e c e of equipment. 
He 
r e p o r t e d 
t h i s 
i n j u r y t o h i s s u p e r v i s o r 
and 
was 
d r i v e n t o Auburn U r g e n t Care by h i s w i f e , as he 
was 
u n a b l e t o d r i v e h i s own 
v e h i c l e due 
t o the 
p a i n . 
M e d i c a l r e c o r d s o f f e r e d r e f l e c t e d t h a t t h e r e was 
no 
w o r k - r e l a t e d 
i n j u r y . 
However, 
[ C a l d w e l l ] 
and 
h i s 
w i f e 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he 
t o l d m e d i c a l 
p e r s o n n e l 
t h a t 
1A more complete r e c i t a t i o n of the f a c t s i s p r o v i d e d 
i n 
the o p i n i o n of the C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s . 
___ So. 3d a t ___ . 
5 
1110513 
h i s 
p a i n was due t o an i n j u r y a t work and t h a t t h e 
r e c o r d s were i n c o r r e c t . 
The m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l who 
completed t h e m e d i c a l r e p o r t s d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t 
t h e 
h e a r i n g and were not deposed. 
T h e r e f o r e , t h e C o u r t 
was w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e i r 
t e s t i m o n y . 
are 
"The 
C o u r t 
f i n d s t h a t [ C a l d w e l l ] and h i s w i f e 
c r e d i b l e w i t n e s s e s . [ C a l d w e l l ] has a r o u g h l y 20-
year 
work 
h i s t o r y 
w i t h 
[West 
F r a s e r ] 
o r i t s 
p r e d e c e s s o r s and has been a model employee. 
The 
C o u r t p l a c e s a g r e a t d e a l o f w e i g h t on [ C a l d w e l l ' s ] 
exemplary work h i s t o r y f o r 
t h e same employer. 
"Having 
c o n s i d e r e d t h e t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e 
p r e s e n t e d , as w e l l as t h e arguments o f c o u n s e l , t h e 
C o u r t 
f i n d s t h a t [ C a l d w e l l ] has met h i s burden o f 
p r o o f . 
... 
The C o u r t 
f i n d s 
t h a t 
[ C a l d w e l l ] has 
s u f f e r e d a compensable 
i n j u r y and i s e n t i t l e d t o 
m e d i c a l 
coverage 
as 
w e l l 
as 
temporary 
t o t a l 
d i s a b i l i t y from t h e time o f t h e a c c i d e n t . " 
( F o o t n o t e 
o m i t t e d . ) 
West F r a s e r a p p e a l e d t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s judgment t o 
t h e 
C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , a r g u i n g t h a t C a l d w e l l had n o t 
met 
h i s 
burden o f p r o o f i n e s t a b l i s h i n g c o m p e n s a b i l i t y . The C o u r t o f 
C i v i l A p p e a l s agreed and r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, 
h o l d i n g t h a t a l t h o u g h 
" [ C a l d w e l l ] p r e s e n t e d some e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t 
he 
i n j u r e d 
h i s back 
[ a t work] 
... , 
t h a t 
e v i d e n c e 
does n o t amount t o s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
w i l l 
s u p p o r t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t . " 
So. 3d a t 
. 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
6 
1110513 
"The 
s t a n d a r d o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i n w o r k e r s ' 
compensation cases i s 
governed by § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . 
Code 1975, which p r o v i d e s t h a t , 
' [ i ] n 
r e v i e w i n g pure 
f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h e f i n d i n g o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t 
s h a l l n o t 
be r e v e r s e d i f 
t h a t f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d 
by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . ' 
' S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' 
i s 
'"evidence 
o f 
such 
w e i g h t 
and 
q u a l i t y 
t h a t 
f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l 
judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f 
t h e 
f a c t 
sought 
t o be p r o v e d . " ' 
Ex p a r t e 
T r i n i t y 
 
Indus., 
I n c . , 680 
So. 
2d 
262, 
268 ( A l a . 
1 9 9 6 ) ( q u o t i n g West v. Founders 
L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co., 
547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . 
"When e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e 
t e n u s , i t i s 
t h e 
d u t y o f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t , which had t h e 
o p p o r t u n i t y 
to 
observe t h e w i t n e s s e s and t h e i r 
i r demeanors, and 
make 
c r e d i b i l i t y 
r-; 
^
^
^
^
^ 
,
^
,
,
^
^
^
^
4
-
^
^ 
not 
t h e 
a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t , 
t o 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s and t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . 
Blackman v. Gray R i d e r Truck L i n e s , I n c . , 716 So. 
2d 
698, 700 ( A l a . C i v . 
App. 1998) . 
The r o l e o f 
t h e 
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s 
not t o r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e b u t 
to 
a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t i f i t s 
f i n d i n g s a r e r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e 
and t h e c o r r e c t 
l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s have been drawn 
t h e r e f r o m . 
Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y Indus., 680 So. 2d 
a t 
2 
68-69; F r y f o g l e v. S p r i n g h i l l Mem'l Hosp., 
I n c . , 
742 So. 2d 1255 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998), 
a f f ' d , 742 
So. 2d 1258 ( A l a . 1999). 
The ' a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must 
view t h e f a c t s i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o 
t h e 
f i n d i n g s o f 
t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e P r o f e s s i o n a l  
Bus. Owners Ass'n Workers' Comp. Fund, 867 So. 2d 
1099, 1102 ( A l a . 2003)." 
Ex p a r t e Hayes, 70 So. 3d 1211, 1215 ( A l a . 2011). 
D i s c u s s i o n 
C a l d w e l l m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s e r r e d 
i n r e v e r s i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment because, he s a y s , he 
7 
1110513 
p r e s e n t e d 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e 
t o 
s a t i s f y 
h i s 
burden 
of 
p r o v i n g t h a t the i n j u r y was compensable. 
The C o u r t of 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t i t s r e v i e w of the e v i d e n c e , 
i n i t s 
t o t a l i t y , 
see 
Ex 
p a r t e 
Southern Energy Homes, I n c . , 
873 
So. 
2d 
1116 
( A l a . 2003), e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the t e s t i m o n y 
l i n k i n g C a l d w e l l ' s 
i n j u r y t o h i s employment was 
so i m p l a u s i b l e i n s u b s t a n c e t h a t 
a f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n e x e r c i s i n g i m p a r t i a l judgment would not 
r e a s o n a b l y 
i n f e r 
c a u s a t i o n 
from 
t h a t 
t e s t i m o n y . 
A f t e r 
r e v i e w i n g the e v i d e n c e , 
i t h e l d t h a t " t h a t e v i d e n c e does not 
amount 
t o 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
w i l l 
s u p p o r t 
the 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
of 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t . " 
So. 
3d 
a t 
. 
A c c o r d i n g 
t o C a l d w e l l , however, i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e c i s i o n , the 
C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s reweighed the e v i d e n c e ; 
c o n s e q u e n t l y , 
he a r g u e s , i t s d e c i s i o n c o n f l i c t s w i t h Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , w h i c h 
p r o v i d e s : 
" I n r e v i e w i n g a d e c i s i o n of the 
t r i a l c o u r t , 
an 
a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t 
i s not 
p e r m i t t e d 
t o 
r e w e i g h 
the 
e v i d e n c e , because w e i g h i n g the e v i d e n c e i s s o l e l y a 
f u n c t i o n of the 
t r i e r 
of f a c t . 
However, i t i s the 
f u n c t i o n of the 
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t 
t o a s c e r t a i n 
t h a t 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t are s u p p o r t e d by 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e 
" 
47 So. 3d a t 
778. 
8 
1110513 
We have r e v i e w e d 
the 
t o t a l i t y of the e v i d e n c e 
p r e s e n t e d 
to 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t , and we 
c o n c l u d e t h a t the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
f i n d i n g 
t h a t 
C a l d w e l l ' s 
i n j u r y 
was 
a compensable 
one 
i s 
s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . 
C a l d w e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t he 
i n j u r e d h i s back w h i l e c h a n g i n g the 
" k n i v e s " on a m u l c h i n g 
machine. C a l d w e l l and Rhonda b o t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y 
i n f o r m e d 
the m e d i c a l s t a f f a t each h e a l t h - c a r e f a c i l i t y a t w h i c h he 
was 
t r e a t e d t h a t C a l d w e l l had i n j u r e d h i s back a t work. 
A l t h o u g h 
the m e d i c a l r e c o r d s from the f i r s t two h e a l t h - c a r e 
f a c i l i t i e s 
C a l d w e l l v i s i t e d do not i n d i c a t e t h a t he i n f o r m e d the 
m e d i c a l 
s t a f f t h a t he had 
i n j u r e d h i s back a t work, a l l subsequent 
m e d i c a l 
r e c o r d s , 
i . e . , 
those 
c r e a t e d 
f o u r 
days 
a f t e r 
C a l d w e l l ' s 
i n i t i a l 
v i s i t 
t o 
a 
h e a l t h - c a r e 
f a c i l i t y 
and 
t h e r e a f t e r , 
i n d i c a t e t h a t the m e d i c a l 
s t a f f s were 
i n f o r m e d 
t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s back i n j u r y was 
w o r k - r e l a t e d . 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , 
Dr. S c o t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s back i n j u r y , a l t h o u g h i t 
c o u l d have o c c u r r e d i n s e v e r a l ways, was 
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the 
l i f t i n g i n c i d e n t C a l d w e l l had d e s c r i b e d as c a u s i n g the i n j u r y . 
Thus, 
" f a i r - m i n d e d 
p e r s o n s 
i n 
the 
e x e r c i s e 
of 
i m p a r t i a l 
judgment 
[could] 
r e a s o n a b l y 
i n f e r " 
from t h i s e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
9 
1110513 
C a l d w e l l had i n j u r e d h i s back a t work and t h a t the i n j u r y 
was 
compensable. 
The 
C o u r t 
of 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s 
r e l i e d h e a v i l y on Ex 
p a r t e  
Southern 
Energy Homes, s u p r a ; 
J a c k s o n 
L a n d s c a p i n g , 
I n c . 
v.  
Hooks, 844 
So. 
2d 1267 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
2002); and G.UB.MK.  
C o n s t r u c t o r s v. D a v i s , 45 So. 3d 1277 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
2010), 
i n 
d e t e r m i n i n g 
t h a t 
C a l d w e l l d i d not 
p r e s e n t 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e of c o m p e n s a b i l i t y so as t o s u p p o r t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s 
judgment. 
We agree w i t h the C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s t h a t t h e s e 
cases are i n s t r u c t i v e and t h a t t h e i r r e a s o n i n g i s a p p l i c a b l e 
t o t h i s case. 
These cases remind us t h a t c o m p e n s a b i l i t y i n 
the 
c o n t e x t 
of w o r k e r s ' 
compensation i s d e t e r m i n e d 
upon a 
case-by-case 
r e v i e w of the t o t a l i t y of the e v i d e n c e 
p r e s e n t e d . 
These c a s e s , however, are f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e 
from t h i s 
case. 
For example, i n each of t h e s e c a s e s , the employee's 
t e s t i m o n y 
t h a t 
the 
i n j u r y 
s u f f e r e d was 
w o r k - r e l a t e d 
was 
i m m e d i a t e l y q u e s t i o n a b l e i n l i g h t of the l e n g t h y p e r i o d t h a t 
had e l a p s e d between the a l l e g e d w o r k - r e l a t e d i n j u r y and 
the 
employee's s t a t i n g t h a t the i n j u r y was w o r k - r e l a t e d . 
Here, a t 
most, f o u r days p a s s e d between C a l d w e l l ' s l e a v i n g work as a 
r e s u l t of the back i n j u r y and the d o c u m e n t a t i o n of the 
i n j u r y 
10 
1110513 
as a w o r k - r e l a t e d i n j u r y . 
T h e r e f o r e , C a l d w e l l ' s t e s t i m o n y , 
u n l i k e t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e employees i n Ex p a r t e 
S o u t h e r n 
 
Homes, 
Hooks, and D a v i s , 
a l o n g 
w i t h t h e o t h e r 
e v i d e n c e 
p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s case, c o n s t i t u t e d " e v i d e n c e o f such 
w e i g h t 
and 
q u a l i t y 
t h a t 
f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s 
i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f 
i m p a r t i a l judgment [ c o u l d ] r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r " t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s 
i n j u r y was w o r k - r e l a t e d . 
We 
c o n c l u d e 
from our r e v i e w o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e 
e v i d e n c e , which a d m i t t e d l y r e v e a l s some i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e 
e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s 
i n j u r y i s compensable i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e . 
The t e s t i m o n y l i n k i n g C a l d w e l l ' s i n j u r y t o 
h i s 
employment was 
not so i m p l a u s i b l e i n s u b s t a n c e 
t h a t a f a i r - m i n d e d 
p e r s o n 
e x e r c i s i n g i m p a r t i a l judgment c o u l d not r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r from 
i t c a u s a t i o n . West F r a s e r p r e s e n t e d c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e . The 
t r i a l c o u r t r e c o n c i l e d t h e c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y , 
weighed t h e 
e v i d e n c e , 
and 
c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t 
C a l d w e l l ' s 
i n j u r y 
was 
compensable. 
Because t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s 
s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , C a l d w e l l has e s t a b l i s h e d 
t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s c o n f l i c t s w i t h 
Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h and must be r e v e r s e d . 
11 
1110513 
C o n c l u s i o n 
Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e judgment o f t h e C o u r t o f 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s i s r e v e r s e d and t h i s 
case i s remanded f o r 
p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s 
o p i n i o n . 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
Malone, C.J., 
and W o o d a l l , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Shaw, Main, and 
Wise, J J . , 
c o n c u r . 
Murdock, J . , 
c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t . 
12 
1110513 
MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g i n the 
r e s u l t ) . 
The 
main 
o p i n i o n c o n c l u d e s 
t h a t 
t h e r e i s a 
c o n f l i c t 
between the d e c i s i o n of the C o u r t of 
C i v i l A p p e a l s i n t h i s 
case and the h o l d i n g of t h i s C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , 
47 
So. 3d 767 
( A l a . 2008). 
I agree. 
C o n f l i c t s of t h i s n a t u r e , 
however, are p e r f e c t l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e and, i n d e e d , u n a v o i d a b l e 
g i v e n t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n Ex p a r t e Southern Energy Homes,  
I n c . , 
873 So. 2d 1116 
( A l a . 2003). 
E x c e p t as t o c e r t a i n t y p e s of cases w i t h which we are not 
here concerned, § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t 
the d e c i s i o n i n a w o r k e r s ' compensation 
case s h a l l be 
based 
upon the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o "a preponderance 
of 
the e v i d e n c e . " 
S e c t i o n 25-5-81(e)(2) 
s t a t e s t h a t a judgment 
of 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t based on a f a c t u a l f i n d i n g 
" s h a l l not be 
r e v e r s e d 
i f 
t h a t 
f i n d i n g 
i s 
s u p p o r t e d 
by 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e . " 
In Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t the 
t a s k s of making c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s and w e i g h i n g the 
e v i d e n c e , and u l t i m a t e l y f i n d i n g f a c t s , are w i t h i n the domain 
of t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t : 
" ' [ A ] n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l not r e v e r s e a judgment 
based upon a p a r t i c u l a r 
f i n d i n g of 
f a c t 
" i f t h a t 
f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e -- i f 
t h a t 
f i n d i n g 
i s s u p p o r t e d 
by 
'evidence 
o f 
such 
13 
1110513 
w e i g h t and 
q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n the 
e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y 
i n f e r 
the e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought t o be p r o v e d . ' " Ex  
p a r t e 
T r i n i t y Indus., I n c . , 680 
So. 
2d 262, 
268-69 
( A l a . 
1996) 
( q u o t i n g West v. Founders L i f e 
A s s u r . 
 
Co. 
of 
F l o r i d a , 
547 
So. 
2d 
870, 
871 
( A l a . 1989)) 
(emphasis added).'" 
47 So. 
3d a t 771 
( q u o t i n g KGS 
S t e e l , 
I n c . 
v. 
M c I n i s h , 
47 
So. 
3d 749, 
752 
( A l a . 
C i v . 
App. 
2 0 0 6 ) ) . 
" I n r e v i e w i n g 
a 
d e c i s i o n 
of 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t , 
an 
a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t 
i s 
not 
p e r m i t t e d 
t o 
reweigh 
the 
e v i d e n c e 
because 
w e i g h i n g 
the 
e v i d e n c e i s s o l e l y 
a f u n c t i o n of the 
t r i e r 
of 
f a c t . " 
47 
So. 3d a t 
778. 
As 
t o whether the 
r e c o r d i n the p r e s e n t 
case 
c o n t a i n s 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, 
i t i s worth e m p h a s i z i n g t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d 
i n i t s o p i n i o n t h a t i t had c o n s i d e r e d the t e s t i m o n y of W i n d e l l 
C a l d w e l l , S r . , and h i s w i f e and found i t t o be c r e d i b l e . 
The 
t r i a l c o u r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d , e x p r e s s l y , t h a t i t p l a c e d a g r e a t 
d e a l 
of 
w e i g h t 
on 
C a l d w e l l ' s 
t e s t i m o n y 
i n 
l i g h t 
of 
h i s 
e x e m p l a r y 
20-year 
r e c o r d 
of work 
w i t h West 
F r a s e r , 
I n c . 
C o n s i d e r i n g a l l the e v i d e n c e b e f o r e us, I cannot c o n c l u d e , 
as 
 
a m a t t e r of law, t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s t e s t i m o n y 
i s so i m p l a u s i b l e 
t h a t t h i s C o u r t must r e j e c t i t and, i n the p r o c e s s , r e j e c t the 
14 
1110513 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s as t o 
t h e c r e d i b i l i t y and w e i g h t 
of t h e e v i d e n c e . 
The main o p i n i o n t a k e s note o f t h i s C o u r t ' s 2003 d e c i s i o n 
i n Ex p a r t e Southern Energy Homes and s t a t e s t h a t 
S o u t h e r n  
Energy Homes 
i s " i n s t r u c t i v e and t h a t 
[ i t s ] r e a s o n i n g i s 
a p p l i c a b l e " i n 
t h e p r e s e n t case. 
So. 3d a t 
. I do 
not f i n d i t 
so. 
W h i l e 
e n d o r s i n g t h e t o t a l i t y - o f - t h e - e v i d e n c e 
approach 
adopted i n Southern Energy Homes, t h e main o p i n i o n seeks t o 
d i s t i n g u i s h 
t h i s 
case 
from 
Southern 
Energy Homes based on 
minor f a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s I do n o t f i n d p e r s u a s i v e .
2 
Indeed, 
2 I n Southern Energy Homes, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e employee's 
t e s t i m o n y , "she i m m e d i a t e l y i n f o r m e d h e r s u p e r v i s o r t h a t she 
had been 
i n j u r e d on t h e j o b . " 
873 So. 2d a t 1117. 
The 
employee m i s s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g day 
o f 
work; f i v e days l a t e r she 
asked h e r employer t o a r r a n g e f o r 
h e r t o see a d o c t o r . I d . 
S e v e r a l months l a t e r , a c c o r d i n g t o 
t h e 
employee, she s u f f e r e d 
f u r t h e r 
w o r k - r e l a t e d 
i n j u r y , 
a t 
which 
time 
she 
a l s o 
i m m e d i a t e l y i n f o r m e d h e r s u p e r v i s o r . 873 So. 2d a t 
1118. I n 
the 
p r e s e n t 
case, t h e employee 
i m m e d i a t e l y 
i n f o r m e d h i s 
s u p e r v i s o r on t h e 
day 
o f 
t h e i n j u r y t h a t he was s u f f e r i n g from 
back p a i n and t h a t he was l e a v i n g work t o 
see 
a d o c t o r , b u t 
he 
a p p a r e n t l y made no mention o f t h e i n j u r y b e i n g w o r k - r e l a t e d . 
A c c o r d i n g t o t e s t i m o n y from b o t h C a l d w e l l and h i s w i f e , t h e y 
i n f o r m e d a m e d i c a l p r o v i d e r on t h a t day t h a t C a l d w e l l ' s back 
p a i n was t h e r e s u l t o f an i n j u r y ; however, t h e f i r s t 
mention 
of such an i n j u r y i n 
a m e d i c a l r e c o r d appears f o u r days l a t e r 
i n 
c o n n e c t i o n 
w i t h 
C a l d w e l l ' s 
t h i r d 
t r i p 
t o a 
m e d i c a l 
p r o v i d e r . I n 
p o i n t o f f a c t , c o n s i d e r i n g 
t h e 
f o r e g o i n g and t h e 
o t h e r e v i d e n c e o f r e c o r d i n 
b o t h t h i s case and Southern 
Energy  
Homes, t h e 
e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e i n 
s u p p o r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s 
15 
1110513 
the 
f a c t 
t h a t 
t h e a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t s o f 
t h i s 
S t a t e 
f i n d 
t h e m s e l v e s 
g r a p p l i n g 
w i t h 
and 
w e i g h i n g 
such 
f a c t u a l 
d i f f e r e n c e s i n an e f f o r t t o d e c i d e t h e outcome o f a case i s 
r e v e a l i n g . 
The r e a s o n we a r e h e r e , and t h e r e a l r e a s o n t h e 
C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s was so d i v i d e d i n i t s approach t o t h i s 
c a s e ,
3 i s 
i n f a c t t h e h o l d i n g o f t h i s C o u r t i n Southern Energy  
Homes. 
The approach adopted by t h e m a j o r i t y i n S o u t h e r n 
Energy  
Homes u n a v o i d a b l y c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e s embodied i n 
§ 25-5-81(c) a n d ( e ) ( 2 ) , Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , and so many o t h e r 
cases 
t h a t 
have 
r e p e a t e d l y 
r e a f f i r m e d 
t h e 
fundamental 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e - o r e tenus d e f e r e n c e owed t o t h e f i n d i n g s 
of 
t r i a l 
c o u r t s i n w o r k e r s ' compensation 
c a s e s . 
To borrow 
t e r m i n o l o g y 
from 
one o f t h e t h r e e 
d i s s e n t i n g 
o p i n i o n s 
p u b l i s h e d i n t h a t case, t h e h o l d i n g i n S o u t h e r n Energy Homes  
sub 
s i l e n t i o 
" o v e r r u l [ e d ] ... so much 
b e d r o c k 
w o r k e r s ' 
compensation p r e c e d e n t . " 
873 So. 2d a t 1128 (Johnstone, 
J . , 
d i s s e n t i n g ) ; 
see 
a l s o 
873 So. 2d a t 1124 
(Lyons, J . , 
f i n d i n g o f m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n a r g u a b l y was s t r o n g e r i n Southern  
Energy Homes t h a n i t 
i s h e r e . 
3The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s ' o p i n i o n 
was a u t h o r e d by Judge 
Moore, w i t h Judges P i t t m a n and Thomas c o n c u r r i n g and Judge 
Bryan and P r e s i d i n g Judge Thompson d i s s e n t i n g . 
16 
1110513 
d i s s e n t i n g ) and a t 1128 (Harwood, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
U n l e s s and 
u n t i l t h i s d e p a r t u r e from t h e "bedrock" p r i n c i p l e s r e v i e w e d a t 
the o u t s e t o f t h i s w r i t i n g i s r e v i s i t e d and removed from our 
j u r i s p r u d e n c e , i t 
i s i n e v i t a b l e t h a t we w i l l c o n t i n u e t o 
see 
cases i n w h i c h t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s a r e asked t o d e c i d e how 
much i s 
enough -- how much e v i d e n c e i n f a v o r o f t h e employer 
i s enough t o outweigh t h e e v i d e n c e i n f a v o r o f t h e employee. 
The 
s t r u g g l e t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n has always been, and 
s h o u l d a g a i n be, c o n s i g n e d s o l e l y t o t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t s . 
17