REL: 08/29/2014
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2014
_________________________
1131005
_________________________
Ex parte Stericycle, Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Stericycle, Inc.
v.
Sonja Patterson)
(Jefferson Circuit Court, CV-11-901265;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2111032)
WISE, Justice.
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
Stuart, Bolin, Shaw, Main, and Bryan, JJ., concur.
Moore, C.J., and Parker and Murdock, JJ., dissent.
1131005
MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting).
Sonja Patterson was a truck driver for Stericycle, Inc.
On January 19, 2011, Patterson was loading three 50-pound
containers onto her truck when she felt a painful "pop" in her
lower back. Patterson saw several doctors, none of whom were
able to explain her degree of pain or her lack of mobility
following the incident. Stericycle paid the bills for her
doctor visits but refused to pay Patterson
temporary-disability benefits.
On April 12, 2011, Patterson filed a complaint seeking
benefits for a permanent-total disability. The parties
stipulated that the injury "arose out of and in the course of
her employment." They further stipulated that "the only issue
to be decided by the court ... is the nature and extent of
permanent disability benefits, if any, owed to [Patterson]."
After a bench trial, the trial court declared that Patterson
was entitled to a 57% permanent-partial-disability award.
Although the trial court noted the parties' stipulation that
the accident "arose out of and in the course of" Patterson's
employment, it nonetheless proceeded to make factual findings
on the issue of the medical causation for her injury.
2
1131005
Stericycle appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which
affirmed the trial court's judgment in a plurality opinion
authored by Judge Pittman.1 The plurality held that Patterson
did not need to prove medical causation because Stericycle had
stipulated that the injury "arose out of and in the course of
[Patterson's] employment," which dispensed with the necessity
of proving medical causation. The plurality also held that the
portion of the trial court's judgment discussing medical
causation, therefore, "constituted, at most, a superfluous
observation." Stericycle, Inc. v. Patterson, [Ms. 2111032,
July 12, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
Judge Moore dissented, arguing (1) that the provisions of the
trial court's judgment, when read in pari materia, indicate
that the trial court did not interpret the parties'
stipulation to cover the issue of medical causation, and (2)
that Patterson failed to carry her burden of proving
causation. Stericycle now petitions this Court for a writ of
certiorari.
1
The plurality opinion was joined by Judge Thomas;
Presiding Judge Thompson and Judge Donaldson concurred in the
result without writings. Judge Moore dissented.
3
1131005
In its petition, Stericycle contends that the opinion of
the Court of Civil Appeals conflicts with Moore v. Graham, 590
So. 2d 293 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). In Moore, the Court of Civil
Appeals held:
"Judgments are to be construed like other written
instruments. The rules applicable to the
construction and interpretation of judgments are
those applicable to the construction and
interpretation of contracts. Hanson v. Hearn, 521
So. 2d 953 (Ala. 1988). Separate provisions of
judgments, like provisions of contracts, should be
construed in pari materia, and the entire judgment--
all provisions considered--should be read as a whole
in the light of all the circumstances, as well as of
the conduct of the parties. Id."
Moore, 590 So. 2d at 295. Stericycle argues, as Judge Moore
did in his dissent, that the plurality failed to read the
provisions of the trial court's judgment in pari materia, and,
according to Stericycle, doing so would prove that the parties
did not intend for the stipulation to cover the issue of
medical causation.
This case, in my opinion, is a good candidate for
certiorari review. As Judge Moore observed, the trial court
made significant findings on causation, and its having done so
raises a reasonable question as to the correctness of the
Court of Civil Appeals' determination that the stipulation
4
1131005
established causation per se. The medical examinations
indicated no impairment and a lack of a medical cause for
Patterson's symptoms. Therefore, I would grant Stericycle's
petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve the conflicting
analyses in the plurality opinion of the Court of Civil
Appeals and Judge Moore's dissent.
5