Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Metals USA Plates & Shapes Southeast, Inc. v. Conner

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided August 12, 2011No. 2090800 and 2091020Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

THOMPSON,

Presiding Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In its judgment, the trial court found that Albert Conner’s chronic lower-back pain was a natural consequence flowing from the initial injury to Conner’s ankle. Metals USA Plates and Shapes Southeast, Inc., did not allege that compensation for Conner’s ankle was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. When the trial court considered Conner’s back pain as part of its determination of the extent of Conner’s disability and the amount of workers’ compensation benefits he was en*436titled to for his work-related injuries, it…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Norris v. Alabama State BarSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API