644 So. 2d 954 | Ala. Civ. App. | 1994
The prior judgment of this court has been reversed and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama for further proceedings. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court's opinion in Ex parte Bryant,
The facts of this case are sufficiently set out in the prior opinions. See Ex parte Bryant, supra, and HollarOil Co. v. Bryant,
At the outset, we note the two-step process regarding the standard of review in workmen's compensation cases.1
Initially, we will determine whether there is any legal evidence to support the trial court's findings; then, we will determine whether any reasonable view of that evidence supports the trial court's judgment. Ex parte Eastwood Foods,Inc.,
Hollar first contends that a reasonable view of the evidence does not support the trial court's conclusion regarding a permanent total disability. Permanent total disability does not mean absolute helplessness or entire physical disability.Genpak Corp. v. Gibson,
Bryant, who was 62 years old at the time of trial, testified that he was injured in 1988 while employed as a truck driver for Hollar, and that he began having "anxiety attacks" in early 1989. He stated that he was afraid to drive because of his fear of harming others, and that his doctor had also advised him not to drive. Bryant, his wife, and his daughter testified that Bryant had one or two attacks per week, that these attacks lasted for hours, and that Bryant had stopped participating in activities in which he had been previously involved. Testimony also indicated that Bryant was "drained" and lacked energy following the attacks. Wayne Hollar, an officer of Hollar, testified that Bryant was an excellent employee and that he would believe Bryant's testimony regarding the anxiety attacks.
Dr. Pascual Herrera testified by deposition that in August 1989, without examination or discussion with Bryant, he had prescribed medication for Bryant's anxiety attacks, based on a conversation with Bryant's daughter, who works in Dr. Herrera's office. Dr. Herrera further testified that he saw Bryant in February 1990, and that, based on the results of tests, Bryant was placed on medication for high blood pressure. Dr. Herrera also testified that although he never made a referral, he suggested to Bryant's daughter that Bryant go to a counselor, and that he believed that Bryant had done so. Ultimately, Dr. Herrera advised Bryant not to drive because he did not think Bryant was "stable enough to be driving a big truck."
The trial court found that the testimony of Charles Waldrup, Bryant's vocational expert, regarding Bryant's 100% vocational disability, was uncontradicted by Hollar. Hollar contends that Waldrup testified to a 53% permanent physical vocational rating, and, therefore, that the trial court erred in finding that Waldrup testified that Bryant had suffered a 100% vocational disability. The record reveals that although Waldrup testified regarding factors indicating a 53% overall vocational disability for Bryant, he also testified that, considering Bryant's overall condition, including anxiety, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and high blood pressure, "he's unemployable and he would have a hundred percent vocational disability." Waldrup further testified that if Bryant is having symptoms of anxiety attacks and depression, and if he is taking prescribed medication for those types of symptoms, they would cause him to be unemployable.
In determining the percentage of disability, the trial court may properly consider many factors in addition to the disability of the body, including the claimant's age, education, and experience, as they affect his employability and earning capacity. Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v.Dixon,
Hollar next contends that the trial court erred in ordering Hollar to pay Bryant's medical and psychological expenses. An employer is not liable for medical treatment obtained without justification or notice to the employer. Ala. Code 1975, §
The record contains a letter from Hollar dated August 26, 1988, addressed "To whom it may concern," informing the recipient to "Please send all bills pertaining to" *957
Bryant to a specific insurance address. Bryant asserts that this letter serves as acquiescence in Bryant's obtaining necessary medical, surgical, and psychological care related to the injury. The letter is dated only a few days after Bryant's accident and over a year before the onset of Bryant's anxiety attacks. Viewing the evidence in favor of the employee,M.C. Dixon Lumber Co. v. Phillips,
"All existing and unpaid necessary and reasonable (including psychological) expenses incurred by [Bryant] as a result of his injury, including the mental or psychic disorder resulting therefrom."
The trial court expressly retained jurisdiction to resolve anydisputes regarding the payment or reimbursement of these expenses.
An employer is required to pay the actual cost of authorized reasonably necessary medical expenses. Ala. Code 1975, §
Hollar's final contention is that the trial court erred by failing to make a specific finding regarding Bryant's loss of ability to earn. A finding regarding loss of ability to earn is required to support an award of benefits. Marley Erectors,Inc. v. Rice,
Although this court might not have reached the same conclusions as those of the trial court in this case, we are not permitted to substitute our judgment on appeal. "Where one reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's judgment, the judgment must be upheld, even if another, perhaps better reasoned, view of the evidence might have dictated a different outcome." Ex parte Veazey,
AFFIRMED ON REMAND.
ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J., concur.