“[T]he burden of proof the worker must meet in a workers’ compensation action depends not upon the nature of the condition for which the worker claims benefits, but upon the manner in which that condition was purportedly caused.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he burden of proof the worker must meet in a workers’ compensation action depends not upon the nature of the condition for which the worker claims benefits, but upon the manner in which that condition was purportedly caused.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur with the main opinion's conclusion regarding the burden of proof required in this case and with its affirmance of the trial court's finding Brown to be 48% permanently and partially disabled. I concur in the result as to the main opinion's determination that Prewett is entitled to a credit for the temporary partial-disability benefits it paid to Brown after she reached maximum medical improvement. I write to note that I dissented in Hedgemon v. United Parcel Service, Inc. , 832 So.2d 656 (Ala.Civ.App. 2002), a case relied on in the main opinion. However, the facts and circumstances of that case are distinguishable from those presented in this case and do not warrant my dissenting here as to the credit issue.