Ex parte Massey Chevrolet, Inc.:

In this opinion released on January 23, 2009, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals considered a dispute over medical care in a previously settled case. Specifically, the indemnity and vocational retraining benefits were settled by agreement leaving only the medical benefits open. The authorized treating physician, Dr. Peterson, referred the employee to Dr. Nichols for the pain management of his neck injury. Dr. Nichols, in turn, referred the employee to Dr. Aprill for the specific purpose of administering a cervical discogram. Rather than administering the discogram, Dr. Aprill administered facet injections and performed a CT scan. Dr. Aprill treated the employee several times after that with facet injections and radiofrequency denervation procedures. During this same time period, Dr. Nichols continued to treat the employee with prescription medications. When the employer refused to pay for the unauthorized medical treatment performed by Dr. Aprill, the employee asked the trial court to issue an order requiring said payment and designating Dr. Aprill as the authorized treating physician. The trial judge refused to order the employer to pay for the prior unauthorized treatment but granted the employee’s request that Dr. Aprill be considered the authorized treating physician. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court because Dr. Nichols referred the employee for the limited purpose of administering the discogram. Although Dr. Nichols became the authorized treating physician when the employee was referred to him for pain management, Dr. Nichols maintained control of the employee’s pain management when he made the Dr. Aprill referral.

As a practice pointer, make sure that your authorized treating physicians understand the legal implications of making referrals versus limited purpose referrals. If it is not their intent to relinquish the care of the patient, then they need to be specific when making the referral.

Ex parte Gadsden Country Club:

On January 16, 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court released this opinion wherein it denied the employers’ petition for a writ of mandamus. Specifically, the employee sued for retaliatory discharge pursuant to§ 25-5-11.1, Ala. Code 1975. As a defense, the employer asserted that it fired the employee for leaving work after the accident that resulted in his on-the-job injury without first seeking medical attention, in violation of both his supervisor's instructions and GCC policy. The employee successfully convinced the trial court to strike this defense because the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations had already considered and rejected the defense at an administrative hearing concerning the employee’s unemployment claim. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the employer’s petition because it was determined that an post trial appeal rather than a petition for mandamus relief was the proper recourse.

As a practice pointer, it is important to take unemployment hearings seriously. The administrative law judge’s findings could determine whether you succeed or fail in a subsequent retaliatory discharge action.

Marcus Lynn Whitson v. City of Hoover:

On January 16, 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court considered this case wherein the employee settled his workers’ compensation case and then sued his employer for retaliatory discharge and age discrimination. The employee voluntarily dismissed the retaliatory discharge claim brought pursuant to§ 25-5-11.1, Ala. Code 1975. The circuit judge then dismissed the age discrimination claim because the employee had accepted workers’ compensation benefits and, as such, the employer was protected by the exclusivity provisions of the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the dismissal because it could not be reasonably concluded that the settlement agreement between the parties expressed any intention to release any claims other than those arising under the Workers' Compensation Act.

As a practice pointer, if you intend for the workers’ compensation settlement to cover anything other than workers’ compensation benefits, then you should specify your intention in writing.

2009 Alabama Standard Mileage Reimbursement Rate:

Effective January 1, 2009, the standard mileage reimbursement rate for Alabama was reduced to 55 cents per mile.