which was based on the following test: “ ‘[I]f the effects of the loss of the member extend to other parts of the body and interfere with their efficiency, the schedule allowance for the lost member is not exclusive.’ ” 837 So.2d at 834 (quoting 4 Lex K. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 87.02 (2001)). None of the employee’s medical providers testified that the effects of the employee’s left-hand injury on August 10, 2000, extended to his right hand or to any other part of his body. Although the employee testified that the injury to his right hand occurred because of his overcompensating for the loss of use of his left hand, that rationale for departing from the schedule is invalid. See, e.g., Stone & Webster Constr., Inc. v. Lanier, 914 So.2d 869, 877-78 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a court is bound by the scheduled
holding that if an injury is unexpected from the workers point of view it qualifies as an injury by accident holding that plaintiffs knee injury was considered an impairment because it prevented poleclimbing holding that workers compensating for pain in his right knee by dependence upon his left knee was insufficient to remove the rightknee injury from the schedule overruling masterbrand cabinets inc v ruggs 891 so2d 869 alacivapp2004 which had held that when the effect of a lefthand injury extended to the right hand because of the workers overuse of the right hand the lefthand injury should be treated as nonscheduled holding that the right to recover a particular measure of damages in a workers compensation case is fixed as of the date of injury holding that the right to control is measured by considering 1 the independent nature of the workers business 2 the workers obligation to furnish necessary tools supplies and materials to perform the job 3 the workers right to control the progress of the work except as to the final results 4 the time for which the worker is employed and 5 the method of payment whether by unit of time or by the job