To establish that he is entitled to workmen's compensation the employee must meet two tests of causation — legal and medical. County of Mobile v. Benson, 521 So.2d 992 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988); Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 443 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); "To establish legal causation the employee must show that in the performance of [his] duties [he] was exposed to a danger or risk materially in excess of that to which people not so employed are exposed.
Therefore, we find that legal causation was established. Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 443 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). As concerns medical causation, the employee, in this instance, must show that the fall and resulting injury to his head caused his seizure disorder, his headaches and his dizziness, Mobile, 521 So.2d 992. Medical causation must be established through medical testimony, i.e., the testimony of doctors.
To establish that he is entitled to benefits the employee must meet two tests of causation, legal and medical. Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 443 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); Fordham v. Southern Phenix Textiles, Inc., 387 So.2d 204 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 206 (Ala. 1980). The employer apparently does not dispute that legal causation has been established, i.e., that the accident which allegedly caused the employee's present injury or condition occurred in the course of his employment.
Similarly, in N.L. Industries v. Childs, 150 Ga. App. 866, 258 S.E.2d 667 (1979) the employer was found to have actual knowledge where claimant hurt his thumb, but continued to work for several months thereafter without filing any claim for compensation. Claimant eventually became totally disabled and was admitted to the hospital for corrective surgery. See also Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 443 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982) (actual knowledge of injury of leg sufficient to meet notice requirement with regard to both leg and back injury). The state cases cited by the dissent to support its restrictive interpretation of actual knowledge turn on different facts than those present here.
In the conclusions-of-law section of its judgment, the trial court stated: “Although the evidence demonstrates that [the employee] did report the December 2007 incident to his supervisor, this was not actually required because the employer was already on notice of the initial job injury. See Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 443 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (‘Once the employer has actual notice of an accident and injury, the statute does not require the claimant to provide further notice or continuing information except upon request. In light of Beatrice Foods [ Co. v. Clemons, 54 Ala.App. 150, 306 So.2d 18 (Ala.Civ.App.1975) ], we are not convinced that it was absolutely necessary that the employer be informed of the back injury as long as there was a reasonable medical connection between the injury the employer was specifically informed of and the resulting injury.’).”
The trial court did conclude, however, that Conner's “chronic back pain is a natural consequence flowing from the initial injury to [Conner's] ankle because of the change in [Conner's] gait.” In Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 443 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), we noted: “[T]his court's opinion in Beatrice Food[ s] Co. v. Clemons, [54 Ala.App. 150, 306 So.2d 18 (1975) ], wherein we indicated that once the employer has actual knowledge of an accident and injury, the statute does not require that the claimant provide further notice or continuing information except upon request.
The trial court did conclude, however, that Conner's "chronic back pain is a natural consequence flowing from the initial injury to [Conner's] ankle because of the change in [Conner's] gait." In Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So. 2d 443 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982), we noted: "[T]his court's opinion in Beatrice Food Co. v. demons, [ 54 Ala. App. 150, 306 So. 2d 18 (1975)], wherein we indicated that once the employer has actual knowledge of an accident and injury, the statute does not require that the claimant provide further notice or continuing information except upon request.
To establish that he is entitled to workmen's compensation, the employee must meet two tests of causation — legal and medical. Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 443 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); Fordham v. Southern Phenix Textiles, Inc., 387 So.2d 204 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 206 (Ala. 1980). "To establish legal causation the employee must show that in the performance of [his] duties [he] was exposed to a danger or risk materially in excess of that to which people not so employed are exposed. Put another way, [he] must demonstrate that in the performance of [his] job [he] had to exert or strain [himself] or was exposed to conditions of risk or hazard and [he] would not have strained or exerted [himself] or been exposed to such conditions had [he] not been performing [his] job.
Essentially, the employer's argument is that medical causation was not established. See Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 443 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). With regard to this issue we must again point out that, under the appropriate standard of review, if there is any evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that medical causation was established, we must affirm.
However, it has been recognized that "judicial construction [of this section] has, to a great extent, abrogated [its] literal application." Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 443, 445 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); Beatrice Foods Co. v. Clemmons, 54 Ala. App. 150, 306 So.2d 18, 19 (1975). It is well established both that written notice is not required under § 25-5-78 where it is shown that an employer had actual notice of an employee's accident and that oral notice to an agent of the employer may be sufficient to give the employer actual notice.