// Add the new slick-theme.css if you want the default styling
In Grieser v. Advanced Disposal Services Alabama, LLC, 26 ALW
33-4 (2160290), 8/11/17, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed a trial court’s
refusal to consider the employee’s vocational disability and held that separate
circumstances relieving an employer’s liability under the “Return to Work”
statute are affirmative defenses which must be plead or are deemed waived.
January 21, 2010, while in the course and scope of employment with Advanced
Disposal Services Alabama, LLC, (“Defendant”), employee Jack Grieser
(“Plaintiff”) sustained a back injury while stepping down from a flatbed truck
onto a concrete loading ramp. Medical
benefits were authorized and approved by Defendant, and Plaintiff reached
Maximum Medical Improvement (“MMI”) for said injury on July 23, 2010. Plaintiff returned to work at a wage equal to
or greater than his pre-injury wage, but then his employment was terminated in January
filed his lawsuit against Defendant in February 2011 seeking worker’s
compensation benefits relating to the subject on-the-job injury. In November 2011, Plaintiff amended his
Complaint to add a retaliatory discharge claim under Ala. Code 1975, §
25-5-11.1. Defendant filed timely
Answers to both Complaints and included specific affirmative defenses
therein. Defendant did not plead the
"Return to Work" statute as an affirmative defense.
9, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion in Limine requesting that the trial Court
enter an Order precluding Plaintiff from offering any evidence at trial
relating to vocational impairment or disability arguing that Plaintiff’s
employment was terminated due to his own misconduct and not because of any
issues relating to his on-the-job injury.
Plaintiff argued in opposition that because Defendant had not asserted
this defense in its Answers that Defendant had waived its right to assert this
defense at trial. The trial Court agreed
with Defendant, and on January 26, 2016, entered an Order declining to award
vocational disability benefits to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial
Court’s decision with regard to this issue.
lengthy discussion regarding the “Return to Work” statute, the Court held that Ala.
Code 1975, § 25-5-57(a)(3)i.(i) - (v) created five (5) separate affirmative
defenses available to an employer and that references to the applicability of
the Act and exclusivity provisions contained in the Act were affirmative
defenses separate and apart from the return-to-work statute. Accordingly, the Court held that because
Defendant failed to specifically plead as an affirmative defense that Plaintiff’s
loss of employment was due to misconduct under Ala. Code 1975, §
25-5-57(a)(3)i.(iv), Defendant waived its right to raise this defense at