Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Permanent disability awarded to laborer injured twice on job

Reprints
disability

A longtime laborer for the City of Guntersville in Alabama has been awarded permanent disability after suffering two work-related injuries in his time with the city performing manual labor work between 2001 and 2016, according to an appeals court ruling.

Johnny Looney, who is now 68, in 2016 retired from his post as a litter collector, a job he testified at first accommodated his physical limitations but eventually could no longer perform after two years due to lingering back pain from two work-related accidents: in 2008 he fell out of a city truck and in 2012 he was hit by a city truck while the driver was backing out of a shop, according to documents in City of Guntersville v. Johnny Looney, filed in Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama in Montgomery, Alabama.

Upon his retirement he filed for workers compensation-related permanent total disability, testifying that he wanted to keep working but that the “pain and discomfort became unbearable,” documents state.

A circuit court awarded him permanent total disability. On appeal, the benefits were affirmed with the court writing that Mr. Looney’s “testimony that over time the pain became relentless and that he was not able to consistently perform the labor required for the litter-patrol position — i.e., he could not walk for periods or sit for periods, etc. — supports the trial court’s finding that when Looney quit, the accommodation offered by the City was no longer suitable.”

“No evidence was presented indicating that, when Looney was no longer physically able to perform the litter-patrol job, the City had a position available for a laborer that was less physically intensive than litter patrol that could have accommodated Looney’s physical limitations,” the ruling states, adding that “the City does not direct this court to any evidence indicating that it had a position available that would have accommodated Looney’s declining health.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Next