Brown v. Patton
2011 Ala. LEXIS 56
Ala.2011Background
- Brown, a Korner Store cashier, suffered a fall at work while refilling coffee, leading to a wrist fracture.
- Korner Store denied worker’s compensation, arguing Brown’s fall was idiopathic or caused by a non-work factor.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Korner Store based on Morgan (Ala.Civ.App.2002) as controlling law.
- Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding Byrom (Ala.2004) altered the causation framework and found substantial evidence of arising out.
- This Court granted certiorari and now reverses the Court of Civil Appeals, rendering judgment for Korner Store.
- The core issue is whether Brown’s injury arose out of employment under the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown’s fall arose out of employment | Brown relies on Byrom/footnote language to show causation | Morgan controls; no substantial evidence of causation | Arising-out requirement governs; not satisfied by Brown |
| Whether Byrom’s dicta control the causation standard | Byrom altered post-M Morgan causation rules | Only controlling authority; Byrom dicta not binding | Byrom dicta overruled; not controlling |
| What standard governs review and the court’s remedy | Court should apply liberal construction to grant benefits | Strict adherence to the statutory causation requirement | Certiorari review applied; court disallowed Byrom-based approach and reversed for Korner Store |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Morgan, 830 So.2d 741 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (rejected causation where employee could not show work-related cause)
- Ex parte Byrom, 895 So.2d 942 (Ala.2004) (altered the post-Morgan landscape on causation; dicta questioned)
- Trinity Indus., Inc. v. 680 So.2d 262, 680 So.2d 262 (Ala.1996) (note 3 language treated as dicta; main causation analysis required)
- Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Martin, 417 So.2d 199 (Ala.Civ.App.1981) (rejects but-for test; requires causal connection)
- Ex parte Patterson, 561 So.2d 236 (Ala.1990) (defines causal connection burden on claimant)
- Gilbert, American Fuel & Clay Prods. Co. v. Gilbert, 221 Ala. 44, 127 So. 540 (Ala.1930) (increased-risk concept for causal connection)
- Wooten v. Roden, 260 Ala. 606, 71 So.2d 802 (Ala.1954) (set-in-motion proximate-cause requirement)