Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, 1999

Gibson v. B'ham Bc's (Corr. Copy)

Gibson v. B'ham Bc's (Corr. Copy)
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals · Decided February 12, 1999 · Thompson, Crawley, Monroe, Robertson, Yates
733 So. 2d 427; 1999 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 90; 1999 WL 64957 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Gibson v. B'ham Bc's (Corr. Copy)

Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON, Judge.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R.App.P.; §§ 25-5-1(7), 25-5-1(9), and 25-5-80, Ala.Code 1975; and Ex parte Trinity Indus., Inc., 680 So.2d 262 (Ala. 1996).

CRAWLEY, J., concurs. MONROE, J., concurs specially. ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J., dissent.

Concurring Opinion

MONROE, Judge,

concurring specially.

In accordance with my dissent in American Cyanamid v. Shepherd, 668 So.2d 26 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995), I agree with this court’s conclusion that Gibson’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is barred by the statute of limitations.

Dissenting Opinion

YATES, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. I find the issue presented in this case indistinguishable from the issue presented in American Cyanamid v. Shepherd, 668 So.2d 26 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995), and I consider the rationale of American Cyanamid to be dispositive of the issue raised in this case. In affirming, the majority rigidly applies the limitations provisions of the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act and ignores the beneficent purposes of that Act.

ROBERTSON, P.J., concurs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑