Sanders Lead, a recycling facility in Troy, adopted a new method to extract more lead from aluminum dross, as introduced by industry consultant Miguel Pizzuto. However, during this process, Means, an employee, suffered second-degree burns due to an explosion caused by the rapid addition of sodium hydroxide. While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined Sanders Lead after investigating the incident, legal proceedings were initiated by both parties. Initially, Means sought details about the new method's adoption, which the court deemed irrelevant.
Later, Means sued Sanders Lead employees Glover and Brown, and four others he identified during Glover's deposition, alleging willful conduct resulting in his injuries. The trial court dismissed his claims against the chemical companies, and due to Means's inability to provide substantial evidence against Sanders Lead employees, the court granted them a summary judgment. This was made final when no other claims remained. Means's attempt to reconsider the judgment was denied by the court. Means appealed, but the higher court upheld the trial court's decisions. It found Means's claims against the "substituted defendants" to be time-barred, due to his failure to identify them within the statute of limitations, drawing parallels to a similar case. Further, it ruled that Means had not presented enough evidence proving willful misconduct by Glover and Brown, especially concerning the absence of a safety windshield on the forklift.
"Special Employee" Status Shields Midsouth from Negligence Claims: Court Validates Exclusive-Remedy Provisions
Court Sides with Defendant in Workplace Injury Case, Granting Immunity Under Workers' Compensation Act
Defendant's Petition for Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims Denied by Court
Court Reverses Ruling on Defendant's Status as Employer's Agent in Plaintiff's Accident Case
Interpretation of "Employer" under the Workers' Compensation Act Challenges Defendant's Claim to Immunity
Defendant's Mandamus Petition Denied: Alleged Post-Accident Negligence Not Covered by Workers' Compensation Exclusivity Provisions
Court Upholds City of Muscle Shoals' Claim to Immunity Over Gattman Park Injury
Tenax Granted Immunity in Worker's Injury Lawsuit due to Alabama Workers' Compensation Act
Court Reverses Denial of Summary Judgment, Finds Uninstalled Safety Saw Does Not Equate to Removal of a Safety Guard
Rock Wool Asserts Worker's Injury Claims Barred by Workers' Compensation Act, Countering Casons' Suit under Employer's Liability Ac
Court Rules on Dismissal and Jury Trial Issues in Workplace Assault Case
TDY Employee's Injury Lawsuit Faces Jurisdiction Challenge on Appeal After Key Counts Dismissed by Trial Court.
Court Debates Enforceability of Unapproved Workers' Compensation Settlement After Employee's Death
Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals Limited to Workers' Compensation Remedies
Plaintiff Appealed a Summary Judgment in Favor of APCo on Claims of Negligence and Wantonness
Tort Claims Against Special Employer are Barred by Exclusive-Remedy Provision of the Act
No Evidence of Toxicity Exposure or Work-Related Disease
Procedural Dispute of Proper Court to review Exclusivity Provisions
Administrative Rule deemed Willful Conduct: Claim Allowed under Exclusive Remedy Provisions
Release of Claims Under Workers' Compensation Act does not include Claims Based on Willful Removal of Safety Devicee
Dillard’s Appeal Denied: Court Upholds Calvary’s Time-Barred Defense on Workers’ Compensation Claim Due to Misapplication of the Latent-Injury Exception
Alabama Court Reverses Dismissal of Wal-Mart Worker's Claim, Citing Due Process Concerns.
Injured Worker's Timely Appeal Filing in Question Due to Uncertain Date of Postjudgment Motion's Mailing from Prison.
Court Reverses Dismissal of Worker's Compensation Claim Due to Address Mix-up in Service Process
Employee's Workers' Compensation Claim Denied on Basis of Statute of Limitations
Determining the Statue of Limitations
Dismissal Reversed: Unclear if Full Pay During Restricted Duty Tolls Statute of Limitations