Cottongim v. D & D Construction, Inc.
This text of 561 So. 2d 1115 (Cottongim v. D & D Construction, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This appeal follows the termination of workmen’s compensation benefits for medical expenses. Luther B. Cottongim suffered an on-the-job injury in 1977 while working for D & D Construction Co. (D & D). A settlement agreement was entered wherein D & D agreed to pay all medical expenses related to the injury. In 1989 D & D filed a motion to reopen the case and disputed Cottongim’s claims for continued medical benefits. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court entered an order relieving and discharging D & D “from any and all further responsibility” to Cottongim. Cottongim, pro se, appeals.
Cottongim failed to articulate any issues on appeal and failed to comply with Rule 28(a), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, because he did not cite any authority to support his appeal. Such failure places him in a perilous position and allows us no alternative but to affirm the judgment of the trial court. Cummins v. Slayton, 545 So.2d 783 (Ala.Civ.App.1989).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
561 So. 2d 1115, 1990 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 125, 1990 WL 31416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottongim-v-d-d-construction-inc-alacivapp-1990.