Appellate Law

Trial Court's Failure to Comply With Section 25-5-88 of the Alabama Code Results In Reversal and Remand

Massey Chevrolet, Inc. v. Aderhold, released on April 4 by the Court of Civil Appeals, indicates the consequences of the trial court's failure to comply with section 25-5-88 in a workers' compensation case.   

In Aderhold, the parties entered into a settlement agreement regarding the plaintiff's worker's compensation calim.  The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that the plaintiff retained the right to recover future medical expenses related to his workplace injury.  The plaintiff asserted that the defendant had failed to comply with the terms of the settlment agreement and filed a motion to compel.  The trial court granted the motion and entered the following judgment: "[Massey Chevrolet] is ordered to fund the treatment prescribed and performed by [plaintiff's doctor]."  

On appeal, Massey Chevrolet first argued that the trial court's judgment failed to comply with 25-5-88 of the Alabama Code.  Quoting Danley v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 784 So.2d 1052 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000), the court stated: 

Section 35-5-88, Ala. Code 1975, provides that a judgment in a workers' compensation case shall contain a statement of the law and facts and conclusions as determined by the trial judge.  The purpose of 25-5-88...is to ensure sufficiently detailed findings so that the appellate court can determine whether the judgment is supported by the facts.  Substantial compliance with this requirement is sufficient.  If the trial court's findings are meager or omissive, this court may look to the record to determine if the trial court's judgment should be upheld.  However, if a judgment entered in a worker's compensation case fails to include a finding of facts and conclusions of law, the matter must be reversed. 

(internal citations and quotations omitted).     

Because the trial court's judgment contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law, it did not substantially comply with section 25-5-88 and was due to be reversed and remanded. 

Full post as published by Alabama Appellate Watch on April 07, 2008 (boomark / email).