treating Hughey for back pain for a decade, said that the annular tear was a new injury, and he did not testify as to a specific cause for the annular tear. “ ‘It is a well established principle that evidence presented by a [workers’] compensation claimant must be more than evidence of mere possibilities that would only serve to “guess” the employer into liability.’ ” Ex parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 873 So.2d 1116, 1122 (Ala.2003) (quoting Hammons v. Roses Stores, Inc., 547 So.2d 883, 885 (Ala.Civ.App.1989)). Additionally, the appellate courts have often repeated that evidence that serves only to guess an employer into liability is not substantial evidence sufficient to support a compensability determination. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Orr, 29 So.3d 210, 220 (Ala.Civ.App. 2009) (<HOLDING>); see also SouthernCare, Inc. v. Cowart, 146
holding that evidence of specific competitive injury establishes irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief holding that noncompetitors injury was an antitrust injury as it was inextricably intertwined with the injury the conspirators sought to inflict holding that evidence demonstrating a mere possibility that plaintiffs lefthip injury was the natural consequence of her leftknee injury did not constitute substantial evidence to support judgment against employer holding that the mere failure to investigate does not constitute suppression of the evidence holding that injury to broker through loss of commission was not antitrust injury