Court Opinion

ID: 9937679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:01:48.982068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:01.768283
License: Public Domain

I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
In the second issue presented, the employee claims that the injury to her right arm occurred because she previously had injured her left arm and, therefore, was required to use her right arm. The majority holds that the Bell requirement has been met and that the trial court should base the disability benefits awarded on the loss of earning ability, rather than that in the scheduled allowance in § 25-5-57(a)(3)a. I would hold that the separate injury in the second arm did not result from the first injury in the manner contemplated by the supreme court in Bell; therefore, I would affirm the trial court as to that issue.