Entrekin v. Lasseter No. 2140160
Posted on Oct 12, 2015 10:22am PDT
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
June 26, 2015
Plaintiff filed a claim for benefits pursuant to the Alabama Workers’
Compensation Act, resulting from an injury to his thoracic spine. Plaintiff
settled his claim for workers’ compensation benefits, but did not
settle his entitlement to future medical treatment. The settlement agreement
specifically listed the thoracic spine at T-11 and T-8 as the locale of
plaintiff’s injury, and expressly limited future medical treatment
to that area of plaintiff’s spine.
After entry of the settlement agreement, plaintiff sought treatment for
epidural pain injections in plaintiff’s lumbar spine. Defendant
had authorized lumbar injections prior to the settlement agreement, but,
did not provide authorization for said treatment after entry of the settlement
agreement, citing the specific language regarding treatment only to plaintiff’s
thoracic spine. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel medical treatment,
which was granted by the Etowah County Circuit Court. Defendant appealed
to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals discussed the parole evidence rule,
and a handful of cases cited by the plaintiff, each of which were found
to be distinguishable from plaintiff’s matter. Plaintiff’s
treating physician could not relate the condition at plaintiff’s
lumbar spine to the work-related injury in plaintiff’s thoracic
spine, and instead noted degenerative changes.
Even though the defendant had paid for lumbar injections prior to the settlement
agreement, the four corners of the settlement document reveal an agreement
that the thoracic spine would be the only area subject to future medical
benefits. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court, stating
“we note that it would be unreasonable and impractical to require
an employer entering into a settlement agreement to specifically exclude
responsibility for future medical expenses for each part of the body for
which it does not agree to be held liable.”