Legal Opinion · Dissent

Eldeco, Inc. v. Romines

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 30, 2003No. 1022065Published

1DissentJohnstone, Justice

I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition for the writ of certiorari. Ted Romines’s mental predisposition to the on-the-job-injury, hypertension in this case, does not except his hypertension, a physical injury, from the definition of “injury” in the Workers’ Compensation Act.

“ ‘Preexisting diseases or other predisposition does not prevent compensability. The employer takes the worker as he finds him. It is not necessary that the employment conditions be the sole cause, or dominant cause, so long as they are a contributing cause.’ ”

Ex parte Valdez, 636 So.2d 401, 405 (Ala.1994)…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ex Parte ValdezSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  2. Eldeco, Inc. v. RominesCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API