Brown v. Cassens Transport Co., et al., 6th Cir. 2008:

On October 23, 2008, the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision in Brown v. Cassens Transport Co., et al., 6th Cir. 2008. In Brown, several injured workers brought a Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim against their employer, Crawford & Company and one of many alleged "cut off" doctors. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants deliberately selected and paid unqualified doctors to give fraudulent medical opinions that would support the denial of workers’ compensation benefits, and that the defendants ignored other medical evidence in denying them benefits. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants made fraudulent communications amongst themselves and to the plaintiffs by mail and wire in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343. The district court dismissed the RICO claim and the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). On appeal, the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court decision to dismiss the RICO claim. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the IIED claim, however, because the defendants’ conduct could not be deemed outrageous under Michigan law. Nationally speaking, this case will likely lead to more RICO claims being filed. In Alabama, however, plaintiffs will likely choose to forego their rights under RICO in order to pursue their claims in state court where their odds of victory are generally perceived to be better.

Ex parte N.J.J., --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4687088 (Ala. 2008):

In this opinion released on October 24, 2008, the employee sustained physical and psychological injury when she was physically and sexually assaulted by two men previously unknown to her. The evidence revealed that the assault was racially motivated. Since the reasons for the attack were "personal" and not due to "the employment," the trial court ruled in favor of the employer. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals upheld the trial court ruling. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari, held oral argument, and then quashed the writ leaving the trial court ruling to stand. Justice Cobb released a lengthy dissenting opinion based on the fact that the employee’s workplace created an increased risk of attack and, therefore, it should have been considered a compensable accident.

Norandal U.S.A., Inc. v. Graben, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4603456 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008):

In this case decided on October 17, 2008, the employer appealed from a judgment awarding the employee permanent-total-disability benefits due to a right-knee injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Initially, the employee twisted his knee at work while pushing a drum of paint. Three weeks after surgery, his knee buckled causing him to fall and sustain injury to his right hand, right shoulder, and lower back. The employee did not report the injuries from the fall and sought treatment from an unauthorized doctor. A knee injury is treated as a leg injury and, as such, an employee is typically only entitled to the 200 weeks provided for in the schedule. However, if the effects of the loss of the member extend to other parts of the employee’s body and interfere with their efficiency, then the injury can be taken out of the schedule. To prove this, the employee need only prove that the injury to the scheduled member causes pain or other symptoms that render the non-scheduled parts of the body less efficient. the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals agreed that the injuries sustained in the unreported fall could not be considered because the employee did not comply with the notice requirements. However, the evidence that the employee's right knee extended to and interfered with the efficiency of his lower back and hip because of his altered gait was enough to affirm the trial court’s decision.

Hendricks v. KW Plastics, Inc., --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4531577 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008):

An employee took his workers' compensation case to trial without the benefit of an attorney.  Although he proved that he was involved in an otherwise compensable workers' compensation accident, he was unable to prove that he had any permanent impairment or vocational loss.  As such, the trial judge ruled in favor of the employer except that the future medical benefits were ordered to remain open for life.  Summary judgment was also granted in favor of the employer on the employee's retaliatory discharge claim.  the employee missed his appeal deadline for the retaliatory discharge judgment.  His appeal on the workers' compensation claim was remanded to the trial court for a determination that the Order was final and thus appealable.       

Matthew's Masonry Co. v. Aldridge, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4445185 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008):

On December 12, 2000, the employer settled with the employee and closed everything except future medical benefits for the back.  The settlement language even went so far as to say that medical benefits for both knees were specifically closed.  In 2007, the employee sought treatment for his right knee.  He stated that it was a new problem related to the altered gait caused by his back problem and thus not specifically excluded by the 2000 settlement agreement.  The trial court agreed and ordered that the right knee be covered.  The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the matter back to the trial court stating that it failed to consider or address in its Order the issue of the effect of the specific language releasing the employer from liability for medical expenses relating to the right knee.  We will likely be seeing this one again on appeal.