PITTMAN, Judge.
Stericycle, Inc., appeals from a judgment determining that Sonja Patterson suffers from a 57 percent permanent partial disability and awarding her benefits, pursuant to the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, § 25-5-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the Act"). Stericycle argues that the trial court's medical-causation and disability determinations are not supported by substantial evidence.
Stericycle is engaged in the business of medical-waste management, collection, and removal. Patterson was employed as a route truck driver; her duties were to collect containers of medical waste from designated sites and transport them to a disposal site. On January 19, 2011, Patterson drove a Stericycle truck to Shelby Baptist Hospital in Alabaster; loaded three containers of medical waste, each weighing approximately 50 pounds, onto a hand truck; and was pushing the loaded hand truck up a ramp to the Stericycle truck when she felt a "pop" and experienced pain in her lower back. No one witnessed the accident. It is undisputed that Patterson returned to the Stericycle office and reported the accident to her supervisor the same day.
The following day, Patterson was examined by Dr. Michael Mueller at St. Vincent's Occupational Health Center. Dr. Mueller diagnosed Patterson as suffering from a lumbar strain, prescribed pain medication, returned her to work under light-duty restrictions, and scheduled a follow-up visit for January 26, 2011. Stericycle accommodated Patterson's restrictions and assigned her administrative duties. When Patterson reported to Dr. Mueller at the follow-up visit that she was still having pain, Dr. Mueller scheduled three physical-therapy sessions for her. At the first session, Steven Estrada, the physical therapist, reported that Patterson's symptoms were inconsistent and "positive for symptom magnification." Following the third session, Estrada reported that Patterson had "had no significant subjective or objective change since the first visit. Still appears to be positive for symptom magnification." Patterson saw Dr. Mueller for another follow-up visit on February 10, 2011. Dr. Mueller's office notes for that day state: "22 days post injury; maximum therapy and meds; positive pain behavior and symptom magnification." Dr. Mueller indicated that Patterson could return to work without limitation on February 14, 2011.
At Patterson's request, Stericycle provided her with an alternative treating physician, Dr. Michelle Turnley, a physiatrist. Dr. Turnley dictated the following office note following her examination of Patterson on March 1, 2011:
Dr. Turnley diagnosed Patterson as suffering from a slow-to-resolve lumbar strain and prescribed anti-inflammatory and muscle-relaxant medications. At a followup
On April 4, 2011, Dr. Turnley placed Patterson at maximum medical improvement ("MMI"), released her to return to work with no restrictions, and concluded that Patterson had "[zero] percent physical impairment."
Before Patterson could return to work as a truck driver, she had to be cleared by passing a Department of Transportation ("DOT") physical examination. On April 7, 2011, she reported to Dr. Mueller for the examination. Patterson testified that when she showed Dr. Mueller how far she could bend forward, he informed her that he "could not sign off on" the examination; no examination was ever conducted.
Dr. Turnley referred Patterson to Dr. Martin Jones, an orthopedic spine surgeon, who saw Patterson on April 21, 2011. Noting that Patterson had "some disc bulging and an annular tear," but that there was "no evidence of large disc herniation," Dr. Jones recommended an epidural block and physical therapy and concluded that Patterson could return to work that day without limitations. On May 26, 2011, Patterson returned to Dr. Jones, complaining of back pain and pain and numbness in both legs. Dr. Jones recorded the following office note:
Dr. Ruth Snow, who performed the CT/myelogram, reported that the test showed "mild degenerative disc and facet joint changes in the lumbar spine; lateral recesses are mildly narrowed at L3-4; there is mild left lateral recess narrowing at L4-5; [and] L5 is a transitional element, as is T12." Dr. Gordon Kirschberg, who performed the EMG/nerve-conduction study, stated: "This is a normal electrodiagnostic study without evidence of neuropathy, radiculopathy, or specific entrapment being seen. There was poor voluntary recruitment of all muscle
Patterson returned to Dr. Jones on June 23, 2011. Dr. Jones's office note for that day states:
Stericycle paid for Patterson's medical treatment but paid her no temporary-disability benefits. On April 12, 2011, Patterson filed a complaint seeking benefits for a permanent total disability.
Only two live witnesses testified at trial—Patterson and Eric Fields, the district transportation manager for Stericycle. Patterson, who was 44 years old at the time of trial, stated that she had never experienced, or been treated for, back pain before her workplace accident in January 2011. Aside from the deposition testimony of Dr. Martin Jones (who merely reiterated the findings and conclusions contained in the records pertaining to his treatment of Patterson), no physician or other healthcare provider testified. Patterson's medical records were admitted by agreement of the parties. Counsel for the parties signed and submitted the following stipulations "to be used at the trial of this matter":
(Emphasis added.)
The trial court's judgment, in a section entitled "Evidence Before the Court—Stipulations of Evidence by the Parties," states, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.) Stericycle did not file a postjudgment motion challenging the trial court's statement that the parties had stipulated that Patterson's alleged injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.
Our review is governed by the Act, which states, in pertinent part: "In reviewing the standard of proof . . . and other legal issues, review by the Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a presumption of correctness." Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(1). See also Ex parte Trinity Indus., Inc., 680 So.2d 262, 268 (Ala.1996). "In reviewing pure findings of fact, the finding of the circuit court shall not be reversed if that finding is supported by substantial evidence." Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(2). Substantial evidence is "`evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.'" Ex parte Trinity Indus., 680 So.2d at 269 (quoting West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989), and citing § 12-21-12(d), Ala.Code 1975).
Citing Ex parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 873 So.2d 1116 (Ala.2003), and Ex parte Price, 555 So.2d 1060 (Ala. 1989), Stericycle contends that Patterson failed to present substantial evidence of medical causation. The judgment states, however, that the parties had stipulated that Patterson's injury was "the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of [Patterson's] employment with [Stericycle]." Therefore, Patterson did not have the burden of proving medical causation. See Werner Co. v. Davidson, 986 So.2d 455, 461-62 (Ala.Civ.App.2007).
Ex parte Trinity Indus., 680 So.2d at 265 n. 2 (emphasis added; quoting Alabama Textile Prods. Corp. v. Grantham, 263 Ala. 179, 183, 82 So.2d 204, 207 (1955)). See generally 1 Terry A. Moore, Alabama Workers' Compensation § 10:2 at 314-15 (1998).
"`A stipulation is a judicial admission, dispensing with proof, recognized and enforced by the courts as a substitute for legal proof.'" K.D. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 88 So.3d 893, 896 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (quoting Spradley v. State, 414 So.2d 170, 172 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982)). The trial court's conclusion that the parties had stipulated that Patterson's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment dispensed with the necessity of proving medical causation, as the parties implicitly recognized in their stipulation that "[t]he only issue to be decided by the court in this matter is the nature and extent of permanent disability benefits, if any, owed to [Patterson]." A stipulation is a "`voluntary agreement between opposing counsel concerning disposition of some relevant point so as to obviate [the] need for proof or to narrow [the] range of litigable issues.'" Evans v. Alabama Prof'l Health Consultants, Inc., 474 So.2d 86, 88 (Ala. 1985) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1269 (rev. 5th ed.1979), quoting in turn Arrington v. State, 233 So.2d 634, 636 (Fla.1970)). "Parties may agree to try their case upon a theory of their choosing
The dissent finds fault, on two grounds, with our determination that the parties' stipulation subsumed the issue of medical causation. First, the dissent contends that this case is virtually identical to Wilson v. Berry Industries Co., 451 So.2d 339 (Ala. Civ.App.1984), a decision holding that the trial court was not precluded by the language of the parties' stipulation from determining (a) that the stipulation had not obviated the need to establish causation and (b) that the employee had failed to prove causation. Second, the dissent contends that the trial court's judgment, when read as a whole, indicates that the trial court did not interpret the parties' stipulation to subsume the issue of medical causation because, the dissent says, the trial court made its own finding of fact with respect to medical causation. We will address those contentions in turn.
Berry, supra, is similar to the present case in that the parties stipulated, without specifically mentioning the issue of causation, that "`the only issue to be tried to the Court is the issue . . . of permanent disability[,] be it partial or total.'" 451 So.2d at 340. In Berry, the trial court explicitly determined that the employee had not established causation and denied benefits, thereby implicitly determining that the parties' stipulation had not encompassed the issue of causation. This court affirmed the judgment, stating the following:
451 So.2d at 341 (emphasis added). Berry does not support the conclusion that the issue of medical causation remained extant in the present case; it supports the opposite conclusion. That is so because, in contrast to the judgment in Berry, the trial court's judgment in the present case specifically states that the parties had stipulated that Patterson's injury "was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of [Patterson's] employment with [Stericycle]," thereby indicating that the trial court interpreted the parties' stipulation that the "only issue to be decided by the court in this matter is the nature and extent of permanent disability benefits, if any, owed to [Patterson]" to mean that the issue of medical causation had been resolved by the parties and need not be decided by the court. Berry indicates that, if the judgment is consistent with the trial court's interpretation of the parties' stipulation, then the trial court's interpretation is to be upheld. In the present case, the judgment is consistent with the trial court's interpretation.
With respect to the dissent's second contention—that the judgment, when read as a whole, indicates that the trial court did not interpret the parties' stipulation to encompass the issue of medical causation because the trial court made its own finding of fact with respect to medical causation—we acknowledge that, under the anomalous heading "Findings of Law" in its judgment, the trial court made the following reference to causation:
(Emphasis added.) The dissent maintains that the emphasized statement constitutes a finding of fact that Patterson's January 19, 2011, work exertion caused two bulging disks and two annular tears in her lumbar spine. We think the meaning of the emphasized statement is far less certain. It appears to us that the trial court's oblique reference to causation constituted, at most, a superfluous observation that the "type" of lumbar-spine abnormalities shown on Patterson's MRI could be attributed to the "type" of work exertion that Patterson described as having occurred on January 19, 2011. That observation hardly constitutes a straightforward, conclusive finding that Patterson's work exertion on January 19, 2011, actually caused two bulging disks and two annular tears in her lumbar spine. See 2 Moore, Alabama Workers' Compensation § 24:52 at 591 (stating that a trial court's judgment "should include a conclusive finding of every fact responsive to the issues presented to and litigated by the trial court. . . ." (emphasis added; footnote omitted)).
Further, the trial court's lengthy recitation of the evidence in this case, including evidence of Patterson's medical treatment, diagnoses, and continuing pain following her work exertion on January 19, 2011, did not necessarily signal the trial court's understanding that it was required to make a determination as to medical causation, as the dissent contends. The same evidence was also relevant to the trial court's ultimate disability determination.
Finally, the dissent maintains that the conduct of the parties indicates that they did not intend their stipulation to resolve the issue of medical causation. If that is true, then it is surprising, to say the least, that neither party called an expert witness to testify at trial and that the sole expert who testified by deposition was not asked a single question touching on medical causation. Moreover, the facts that Stericycle (a) argued in its posttrial brief that Patterson had not established medical causation and (b) neglected to challenge the trial court's statement that the parties had stipulated that Patterson's alleged injury "arose out of and in the course of [her] employment" apparently reflect Stericycle's failure to appreciate the legal import of the phrase "arising out of and in the course of . . . employment." That phrase has had a well-established meaning in Alabama jurisprudence for almost a century, see Garrett v. Gadsden Cooperage Co., 209 Ala. 223, 224-25, 96 So. 188, 190 (1923), and counsel should be presumed to know its legal significance or to bear the consequences of their oversight, not to be rewarded for failing to raise the issue.
We conclude that the trial court was authorized to interpret the parties' stipulation—that "[t]he only issue to be decided by the court in this matter is the nature and extent of permanent disability benefits, if any, owed to [Patterson]"—to mean that it was unnecessary to determine the issue of medical causation. That the trial court, in fact, construed the stipulation
With respect to disability, the trial court determined:
Citing Southern Energy Homes, supra, Stericycle argues that the trial court's disability determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Stericycle maintains that, in determining whether Patterson was permanently disabled, the trial court focused solely on Patterson's testimony and her outward manifestations of pain during the trial, thereby discounting without explanation, it says, evidence that every physician who had treated Patterson had reported that her complaints of pain were inconsistent with the objective medical findings, had assigned her an impairment rating of "zero," and had noted that she had displayed either "positive pain behavior," self-limiting effort, or "symptom magnification."
In Southern Energy Homes, the employee claimed to have hurt her back in April 1996 when she fell off a ladder; she also claimed to have reported the accident to her supervisor. Five days later, however, when she asked to see a doctor, she was told by the employer that it was not aware that she had been injured on the job. The employee's medical records contained no mention of the alleged ladder accident or resulting back pain until more than eight months later, after the employee had filed a workers' compensation claim and had left her employment.
An orthopedic surgeon subsequently diagnosed the employee with degenerative disk disease. He noted that, although it was possible that the employee's back pain could have resulted from the ladder accident, the employee's complaints of pain were inconsistent with the physical findings in an MRI that revealed degenerative changes. The employee's physical therapist also noted symptoms inconsistent with physical findings. A neurologist stated that the employee's nerve-conduction study was normal, concluded that the employee had engaged in symptom magnification, and assigned the employee no permanent-impairment rating.
The trial court awarded the employee permanent-total-disability benefits, and this court affirmed. Our supreme court granted the employer's petition for certiorari review and reversed, holding, among other things, that there was "a lack of evidence indicating that [the employee]
Id.
Although there are similarities between Southern Energy Homes and the present case, Southern Energy Homes is distinguishable from the present case because, in this case, the trial court believed Patterson's testimony that she had experienced unrelenting pain since January 19, 2011, expressly determining that Patterson's "subjective manifestations of pain [were] credible." The trial court was not required to explain why it found the physicians' impairment ratings or symptommagnification determinations unpersuasive. See Bostrom Seating, Inc. v. Adderhold, 852 So.2d 784, 793-94 (Ala.Civ.App. 2002).
Ex parte Caldwell, 104 So.3d 901, 904 (Ala. 2012) (quoting Ex parte Hayes, 70 So.3d 1211, 1215 (Ala.2011)). Based on that standard of review, we cannot reweigh the evidence if the trial court's findings are supported by sufficient evidence.
In Compass Bank v. Glidewell, 685 So.2d 739 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), this court stated:
685 So.2d at 741 (citations omitted). "A trial court is free to consider the totality of the evidence, including the employee's subjective complaints of pain, in making its disability determination." G.A. West & Co. v. Johnston, 92 So.3d 74, 87 (Ala.Civ. App.2012) (citing Caseco, LLC v. Dingman,
The factors that the trial court considered and recited in its judgment in determining the extent of Patterson's disability are supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that Patterson has suffered a 57% permanent partial disability.
The judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
THOMAS, J., concurs.
THOMPSON, P.J., and DONALDSON, J., concur in the result, without writings.
MOORE, J., dissents, with writing.
MOORE, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
At the outset of the trial, Stericycle, Inc. ("the employer"), through its attorney, stipulated in open court that Sonja Patterson ("the employee") "alleged to receive an injury to her back that arose out of and in the course of her employment with the [employer]" on January 19, 2011, and that "the only issue to be decided by the [Jefferson Circuit Court] in this matter is the nature and extent of permanent disability benefits, if any, owed to the [employee]."
In Wilson v. Berry Industries Co., 451 So.2d 339 (Ala.Civ.App.1984), the parties stipulated that the only issue to be decided involved the extent of permanent disability with any "remaining issues" to be "stipulated and agreed upon." 451 So.2d at 340. In its judgment, the trial court in Wilson declined to award the employee any compensation, concluding that he had failed to present sufficient evidence indicating that his injury had resulted from his alleged accident. The employee appealed, arguing that the finding contradicted the stipulation of the parties. This court disagreed, stating:
451 So.2d at 341.
In the present case, it is apparent from the wording of the parties' stipulation,
In its final judgment, the trial court concluded that the parties had stipulated that
A fair reading of the parties' stipulation shows that they did not agree that "the alleged injury was the result of" the January 19, 2011, accident.
However,
Moore v. Graham, 590 So.2d 293, 295 (Ala. Civ.App.1991). Thus, in construing the meaning of the trial court's statements in its judgment regarding the parties' stipulations, we must consider the remainder of its judgment in light of the circumstances, as well as the conduct of the parties.
Following the paragraphs regarding the stipulations of the parties, which are contained on pages 1 and 2 of the trial court's judgment, the trial court, in the next 6 pages, recites the evidence regarding the nature of the employee's back condition and the medical diagnoses and treatments she obtained following her January 19, 2011, accident. The trial court then makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
(Emphasis added.) In those findings and conclusions, the trial court expressly determines that the employee sustained an acute injury to her back resulting in two annular tears and two lumbar disk bulges.
The main opinion describes the foregoing findings relative to the nature of the injury sustained by the employee to be nothing more than "a superfluous observation." 161 So.3d at 1177. I disagree. The voluminous findings written over 10 pages of the judgment indicate that the trial court understood that the parties' stipulation did not encompass any agreement as to the nature of the injury and disability resulting from the January 19, 2011, accident. Those detailed findings, constituting the vast majority of the trial court's determination, indicate that the trial court interpreted the parties' stipulation in such a manner that it was still required to determine the type of back injury resulting from the January 19, 2011, accident, as well as its lasting disabling effects.
Like with contracts, the terms of a judgment "should be construed in pari materia and a construction adopted that gives effect to all terms used." Sullivan, Long & Hagerty v. Southern Elec. Generating Co., 667 So.2d 722, 725 (Ala.1995). When construing a document, this court must presume "`"that every word, sentence, or provision was intended for some useful purpose, has some force and effect, and that some effect is to be given to each, and also that no superfluous words or provisions were used."'" Ex parte Uniroyal Tire Co., 779 So.2d 227, 236 (Ala.2000) (quoting Sheffield v. State, 708 So.2d 899, 900 (Ala.Crim.App.1997)). By concluding that the stipulation obviated entirely the issue of medical causation, the judges joining in the main opinion violate those rules of construction by rendering the trial court's findings as to the nature of the injury the employee received and the resulting physical disability from that injury totally meaningless and not essential to its ultimate determination of a 57% permanent partial disability and the award of compensation.
Furthermore, like the trial court, the parties have not treated the stipulation as an admission that the January 19, 2011, accident medically caused the employee the permanent injuries and permanent disability found by the trial court. In response to the employer's argument on appeal that the evidence does not sustain the findings of the trial court as to medical causation, the employee does not even mention the stipulations in her brief to this court,
Associated Grocers of the South, Inc. v. Goodwin, 965 So.2d 1102, 1110 (Ala.Civ. App.2007) (citations omitted).
The findings of fact entered as part of the judgment made by the trial court indicate that the trial court determined that the strain from the January 19, 2011, accident caused the employee "a broad based disc bulge and midline annular tear at both the L-3 and L-4 levels of the lumbar spine" because those "physical findings are consistent with the history contained in the records of [the employee] having suffered an on the job injury." However, as the employer argues, no medical expert opined in testimony or in documents that the January 19, 2011, accident, caused those injuries. The medical records all indicate that those conditions were degenerative in nature. Moreover, no medical expert opined that the January 19, 2011, accident had aggravated those underlying conditions so as to cause the disabling symptoms of which the employee complained.
Because the trial court based all of its subsequent disability findings on its determination that the January 19, 2011, accident caused the employee's lumbar abnormalities, and because that factual determination is unsupported by substantial evidence, see Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(2), the judgment of the trial court is due to be reversed.
Moreover, I see no need to denigrate employer's counsel for any alleged "oversight" or "failure to appreciate the legal import" of the trial court's statements regarding the parties' stipulations, 161 So.3d at 1177, given the context in which those statements were made and in light of the remainder of the judgment, which does, in fact, address medical causation.
