Debra Harris, while working for Augmentation, Inc., sustained injuries in 2011. In 2013, Harris sued Augmentation seeking workers' compensation benefits. By 2014, a settlement was reached where Harris' future medical benefits were left open-ended. However, in 2015, Harris contended that Augmentation didn't cover specific treatments recommended by her physician, Dr. Bailey, or reimburse her for travel to medical appointments. Consequently, Harris pushed for Augmentation to be held in contempt. Augmentation tried to question the link between Harris' current treatments and the 2011 accident. After several delays and a hearing, the court declared Augmentation in contempt, mandating them to cover Harris' treatments and awarding her $10,975 for expenses, fees, and costs. Augmentation challenged this decision, resulting in an in-depth review of the case.
The central controversy lay around the necessity and relevance of Harris' treatments. While Dr. Bailey supported the need for ongoing care like epidural injections, Augmentation's physicians, Dr. Hardy and Dr. Smith, opined that Harris' persisting pain wasn't linked to her 2011 accident. Furthermore, Augmentation argued that the 2014 judgment was open to interpretation concerning their liability for Harris' treatments based on the Workers' Compensation Act. However, the court clarified that the judgment obligated Augmentation to offer reasonable medical treatment connected to Harris' injury while preserving their right to challenge its necessity.
Employer's Appeal Denied Over Continued Medical Benefits for Injured Employee
Appellate Court Reverses Order Directing Employer to Provide Pain Management Treatment
Employer's Appeal Over Termination of Medical Benefits Denied; Lack of Detailed Findings Results in Reversal and Remand
Court Orders Vacating of Mandate Requiring Sears to Approve Medical Treatment for Employee Due to Absence of Evidentiary Hearing on Injury Compensability.
Court Dismisses Employer's Petition Seeking to Avoid Providing Panel of Physicians for Work-Related Injury
Appeal Dismissed Due to Nonfinal Judgment on Worker's Compensation Case
Employee Appeals Over Denial of Physician Selection Rights Under Alabama Workers' Compensation Act
Fairhope Health & Rehab Challenges Compensation for Employee's Knee Replacement Due to Preexisting Condition
Court Rules in Favor of Employee's Compensation for Erectile Dysfunction Medication Stemming from Work-Related Injury
Sheriff Appeals Court's Expansion of Medical Expense Liability Beyond Initial Agreement
Breach of Contract Claim Relating to a Disputed Settlement Agreement for Future Medical Benefits.
Court Upholds Ruling for Employer to Provide Surgery for Injured Workers' Work-Related Injuries
Employer is Obligated to Cover Treatment from a Specialist Referred by the Employee's Chosen Doctor
Staph Infection Work-Related, Benefits Awarded
Defendant's Appeal Dismissed: Cannot Appeal a Non-Final Judgment
Employer's Appeal Over Termination of Medical Benefits Denied; Lack of Detailed Findings Results in Reversal and Remand
Prior Employer Ordered to Continue Medical Benefits After Alleged Aggravation of Knee Injury