Court Opinion

ID: 9657053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:11:56.949687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:40.321921
License: Public Domain

SEE, Justice
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result of the main opinion; however, I write separately in response to Justice Parker’s reliance in his dissent on Judge Moore’s special writing in the Court of Civil Appeals, which argued that Meinhardt’s psychiatric treatment could be considered “vocational rehabilitation” under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Saad’s Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Meinhardt, 19 So.3d 847, 858-61 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (Moore, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Although I am sympathetic with this view, I do not believe that the record contains substantial evidence indicating that Meinhardt’s psychiatric treatment served either a physical- or vocational-rehabilitative function. Therefore, I do not believe it is necessary to address that issue.