Opinion ID: 1896384
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Burden of Proof for Carpal-Tunnel-Syndrome Claims

Text: We granted certiorari review in this case to determine whether the burden of proof for all carpal-tunnel-syndrome claims is clear and convincing evidence, as USX and the two dissenting judges on the Court of Civil Appeals suggest. We hold that clear and convincing evidence is not the required burden of proof in all carpal-tunnel-syndrome claims, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals as to that issue. Whether the burden of proof for all carpal-tunnel-syndrome claims must be clear and convincing evidence. The Legislature provided the proper burden of proof in a workers' compensation case: The decision of the court shall be based on a preponderance of the evidence as contained in the record of the hearing, except in cases involving injuries which have resulted from gradual deterioration or cumulative physical stress disorders, which shall be deemed compensable only upon a finding of clear and convincing proof that those injuries arose out of and in the course of the employee's employment. § 25-5-81(c), Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added). Thus, for a clear-and-convincing evidentiary burden to apply, the injury must be the result of gradual deterioration or cumulative physical stress disorders. § 25-5-81(c), Ala.Code 1975. The Workers' Compensation Act, § 25-5-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 (the Act), defines injury as only injury by accident arising out of or in the course of employment or an occupational disease or [a disease that] results naturally and unavoidably from the accident. § 25-5-1(9), Ala.Code 1975. Injury also includes physical injury caused either by carpal tunnel syndrome disorder or by other cumulative trauma disorder if either disorder arises out of and in the course of the employment. § 25-5-1(9), Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added). When determining medical causation in a workers' compensation case, the trial court should look at the totality of the evidence, including both medical and lay testimony, and determine causation on a case-by-case basis. Clanton v. Hudson Foods, Inc., 594 So.2d 141, 143 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). Furthermore, the trial court is given wide discretion in workers' compensation cases. Malone v. ConAgra Poultry, Inc., 595 So.2d 897, 899 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). [4] When interpreting a statute, [a court] must read the statute as a whole because statutory language depends on context; [a court] will presume that the Legislature knew the meaning of the words it used when it enacted the statute. Bean Dredging, L.L.C. v. Alabama Dep't of Revenue, 855 So.2d 513, 517 (Ala.2003)(citing Ex parte Jackson, 614 So.2d 405, 406-07 (Ala.1993)). Additionally, legislative intent should be given effect whenever it is manifested within a statute. State v. Union Tank Car Co., 281 Ala. 246, 248, 201 So.2d 402, 403 (1967). If a statute uses plain language a court must interpret the language to mean exactly what it says and give the words their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. Bean Dredging, L.L.C., 855 So.2d at 517 (citing Ex parte Shelby County Health Care Auth., 850 So.2d 332 (Ala.2002)). USX asserts that because carpal tunnel syndrome is referred to as a cumulative trauma disorder in the preamble to the Act and in the definition of injury provided by the Legislature, the trial court in determining whether the worker has suffered a cumulative physical stress disorder must apply the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard, regardless of whether the injury was cumulative or traumatic. [5] We disagree. USX is correct in noting that the Legislature recognizes carpal tunnel syndrome as a cumulative stress disorder, but it fails to recognize that the Legislature mentions carpal tunnel syndrome as an example of a cumulative stress injury. See § 25-5-1(9), Ala.Code 1975; Act No. 92-537, § 1, Ala. Acts 1991. The Legislature also included within the definition of injury a disease that results naturally and unavoidably from the accident. § 25-5-1(9), Ala.Code 1975. The Legislature specifically stated that workers' compensation cases should be decided based upon the merit of each individual case and that the Act is to be liberally construed to effectuate the Act's intended purpose, i.e., to protect workers, using the proper burden of proof. Act No. 92-537, § 1, Ala. Acts 1992; Cooper v. Nicoletta, 797 So.2d 1072, 1078 (Ala.2001); Ex parte Usrey, 777 So.2d 66, 72 (Ala.2000) (citing Culbreth v. Woodham, 599 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Ala.1992)). The Legislature's intent is clear, and the language of the statute unambiguous. The Act does not provide that the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden of proof should apply to all carpal tunnel injuries. Rather, it states that the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden of proof shall apply to injuries resulting from gradual deterioration or cumulative physical stress disorders. Thus, the burden of proof that should apply depends upon whether the injury was caused by a traumatic accident or by a gradual deterioration or cumulative stress. The cause of the injury is a determination for the trial court, just as is the applicable burden of proof. Therefore, if the trial court determines that the injury is not caused by gradual deterioration or cumulative stress but rather by a one-time acute trauma, or accident, the proper burden of proof is the preponderance of the evidence. The trial court should look at the totality of the evidence in determining the cause of the injury. Additionally, the trial court is given wide discretion in workers' compensation cases. If the medical evidence indicates that a carpal tunnel injury was caused by a one-time acute trauma, it is not only within the trial court's discretion, but it is its duty under the Act, to apply the preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof. We recognize that the majority of carpal tunnel injuries are caused by gradual deterioration or repetitive motion and, thus, that the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden of proof will apply. However, we cannot ignore the medical possibility, as evidenced by the testimony in this case, that in some cases it is medically possible for carpal tunnel syndrome to result from a one-time acute trauma. The trial court must determine the cause of the carpal tunnel injury and then apply the proper burden of proof. If the trial court determines that the injury was caused by a one-time acute trauma or accident, the preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof will apply, in accordance with the burdens set forth by the Legislature in § 25-5-81, Ala.Code 1975. The Court of Civil Appeals was correct in holding that the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden of proof did not apply to Bradley's carpal-tunnel-syndrome claim. Because Bradley's carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by a one-time acute trauma, the correct burden of proof was a preponderance of the evidence.