562 So. 2d 1320 | Ala. Civ. App. | 1989
This workmen's compensation case has been before this court on two prior occasions. For facts pertinent to this appeal, seeDrummond Co. v. Lolley,
We reversed and remanded the original judgment on the basis that the employee had not reached her maximum medical improvement. Following a hearing on remand, the trial court found the employee to be permanently and totally disabled. The employer appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court failed to properly consider the employee's preexisting knee injury, pursuant to §
Section
"§
25-5-58 . Effect of preexisting injuries or infirmities."If the degree or duration of disability resulting from an accident is increased or prolonged because of a preexisting injury or infirmity, the employer shall be liable only for the disability that would have resulted from the accident had the earlier injury or infirmity not existed."
The key words here are "infirmity" and "disability." These terms have been defined as "simply a condition affecting the employee's ability to work as a normal man." Gold Kist, Inc. v.Nix,
In considering the applicability of §
"[t]hat . . . the employer was fully informed as to Plaintiff's impairments and limitations; that she performed the duties of her job as an underground coal miner, same classification, same pay *1322 scale as all the other underground coal miners performing duties similar to hers and that she functioned, even though suffering from a prior job related injury in this employment, as a normal underground coal miner. . . ."
Our review in workmen's compensation cases is limited to a determination of whether there is any evidence to support the finding of fact by the trial court and if the trial court applied the correct law to such facts. Slimfold Mfg. Co. v.Martin,
The evidence shows that, after each injury, the employee returned to her same job in the same classification with the same pay. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to indicate any failure by the employee to work as a normal person. Although there is conflicting testimony in the record, we cannot say that the record is devoid of any evidence to support the trial court's finding. We find no error here.
The employer perfunctorily contends that the lump sum award of attorney fees in this instance should be reversed and remanded for proper calculation pursuant to Ex parte St. RegisCorp.,
This issue was addressed and affirmed by this court on June 15, 1988. Drummond Co. v. Lolley,
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTSON and RUSSELL, JJ., concur.