(a) As used in this section:
(1) The term “United States” includes only the states of the United States and the District of Columbia; and
(2) The term “state” includes any state of the United States or the District of Columbia.
(b) For the purposes of this section, a person’s employment is principally localized in this or another state when his employer has a place of business in this or such other state and he regularly works at or from such place of business, or if he is domiciled and spends a substantial part of his working time in the service of his employer in this or such other state.
(c) An employee whose duties require him to travel regularly in the service of his employer in this and one or more other states may, by written agreement with his employer, provide that his employment is principally localized in this or another such state; and, unless such other state refuses jurisdiction, such agreement shall be given effect under this section.
(d) If an employee, while working outside of this state, suffers an injury on account of which he or, in the event of his death, his dependents, would have been entitled to the benefits provided by this article and Article 3 of this chapter had such injury occurred within this state, such employee or, in the event of his death resulting from such injury, his dependents, shall be entitled to the benefits provided by this article and Article 3 of this chapter, provided that at the time of such injury:
(1) His employment was principally localized in this state;
(2) He was working under a contract of hire made in this state in employment not principally localized in any state;
(3) He was working under a contract of hire made in this state in employment principally localized in another state whose workers’ compensation law was not applicable to his employer; or
(4) He was working under a contract of hire made in this state for employment outside the United States.
(e) The payment or award of benefits under the workers’ compensation law of another state, territory, province, or foreign nation to an employee or his dependents otherwise entitled on account of such injury or death to the benefits of this article and Article 3 of this chapter shall not be a bar to a claim for benefits under this article and Article 3 of this chapter; provided that claim under this article is filed within the time limits set forth in Section 25-5-80. If compensation is paid or awarded under this article and Article 3 of this chapter:
(1) The medical and related benefits furnished or paid for by the employer under such other workers’ compensation law on account of such injury or death shall be credited against the medical and related benefits to which the employee would have been entitled under this article and Article 3 of this chapter had claim been made solely under this article and Article 3 of this chapter;
(2) The total amount of compensation paid or awarded the employee under such other workers’ compensation law shall be credited against the total amount of compensation which would have been due the employee under this article and Article 3 of this chapter, had claim been made solely under this article and Article 3 of this chapter; and
(3) The total amount of death benefits paid or awarded under such other workers’ compensation law shall be credited against the total amount of death benefits due under this article and Article 3 of this chapter.
(f) The recovery of any compensation benefits under the law of any other state shall bar any common-law or statutory right of action for damages that an employee or his dependents might otherwise have had against the employer or the officers, directors, or employees of the employer as a result of the injury or death on account of which such compensation benefits were paid.
(g) If, as a result of an employment principally localized in another state, an employee of an employer who would have been subject to this article or Article 3 of this chapter, had the contract of employment been entered into in this state for performance in this state, suffers injury or death as a result of an accident occurring in this state, compensation and medical, surgical, and hospital benefits on account of such injury or death may be recovered under this article or Article 3 of this chapter.
(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7540; Code 1940, T. 26, §259; Acts 1975, 4th Ex. Sess., No. 86, p. 2729, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases, 1984–2017 · leading case:
Ex Parte Fluor Corp., 960 So. 2d 701 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).
Ex Parte Fluor Corp., 960 So. 2d 701 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).
· cites it 28× “1989), this court implicitly established such an exception when it reviewed, by petition for the writ of mandamus, the denial of an employer's motion to dismiss grounded on an assertion that the trial court, pursuant to § 25-5-35, Ala.Code 1975, lacked subject-matter…”
Ex Parte Fluor Contractors Int'l, 772 So. 2d 1157 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 9× “The words in § 25-5-35(b), given their plain meaning, do not require that, in order for a worker's employment to be "principally localized" within a particular state, the employer's headquarters or corporate office be in that state, but merely that the employee work for that…”
Robert Burton & Assocs., Ltd. v. Morris, 999 So. 2d 932 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 4× “” It follows that § 25-5-80 is appropriately read in para maten a with § 25-5-35 and that the term “benefits” includes benefits paid in other states.”
Seales by Seales v. Daniel Const. Co., Inc., 469 So. 2d 629 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
· cites it 7× “The parties agree that Seales' right to workmen's compensation benefits under Alabama law is controlled by § 25-5-35, Code of Alabama 1975. This section allows recovery of benefits for out-of-state injuries in certain cases.”
Norris v. Taylor, 460 So. 2d 151 (Ala. 1984).
· cites it 2× “I would agree with this conclusion, if his argument were based on the factual premise that the injured employee had elected to pursue his remedy under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act (§ 25-5-35) as opposed to the Kentucky Workmen's Compensation Act.”
Flint Constr. Co. v. Hall, 904 So. 2d 236 (Ala. 2004).
“Section 25-5-35, Ala.Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, allows the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act to apply to work-related injuries that occur outside Alabama, so long as the law of the other state is not applicable and when certain facts exist.”
Powell v. Sappington, 495 So. 2d 569 (Ala. 1986).
· cites it 2× “See, Code 1975, § 25-5-35. See, also, Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 181 (1969).”
Gillaspy v. S. Erectors, Inc., 161 So. 3d 1224 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
· cites it 9× “This court may review the denial of a motion for a summary judgment grounded on an assertion that the trial court, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-35, lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.”
Bailey v. Lost River Oilfield Servs., LLC, 167 So. 3d 371 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
· cites it 9× “§ 25-5-35(b), Ala.Code 1975. Because [the employee’s] employment was principally localized in Georgia at the time of his alleged out-of-state injury, § 25-5-35(d)(2) does not grant the trial court subject-matter jurisdiction over [the employee’s] workers’ compensation claim.”
Heartland Express v. Gardner, 675 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa 2004).
“See Model Act §§ 7(a)(2), (d)(4); see also Ala.Code § 25-5-35(d)(2) (2000); Ky. Rev.”
Robinson v. Fluor-Daniel Int'l Corp., 598 So. 2d 901 (Ala. 1991).
· cites it 3× “Robinson’s right to workmen’s compensation benefits under Alabama law is controlled by § 25-5-35, Ala.Code 1975, which allows recovery, in certain situations, for work-related injuries occurring in another state.”
Presley v. Dalton Logistics, 167 So. 3d 337 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “However, that statute serves the same purpose in North Dakota as Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-35, serves in Alabama: to set forth which injuries sustained outside the pertinent state may nonetheless be compensable as if they had been sustained inside the pertinent state.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-35(b) — 8 cases
Ex Parte Fluor Corp., 960 So. 2d 701 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).
“1989), this court implicitly established such an exception when it reviewed, by petition for the writ of mandamus, the denial of an employer's motion to dismiss grounded on an assertion that the trial court, pursuant to § 25-5-35, Ala.Code 1975, lacked subject-matter…”
Ex Parte Fluor Contractors Int'l, 772 So. 2d 1157 (Ala. 2000).
“The words in § 25-5-35(b), given their plain meaning, do not require that, in order for a worker's employment to be "principally localized" within a particular state, the employer's headquarters or corporate office be in that state, but merely that the employee work for that…”
Seales by Seales v. Daniel Const. Co., Inc., 469 So. 2d 629 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
“The parties agree that Seales' right to workmen's compensation benefits under Alabama law is controlled by § 25-5-35, Code of Alabama 1975. This section allows recovery of benefits for out-of-state injuries in certain cases.”
Gillaspy v. S. Erectors, Inc., 161 So. 3d 1224 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“This court may review the denial of a motion for a summary judgment grounded on an assertion that the trial court, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-35, lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.”
Presley v. Dalton Logistics, 167 So. 3d 337 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“However, that statute serves the same purpose in North Dakota as Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-35, serves in Alabama: to set forth which injuries sustained outside the pertinent state may nonetheless be compensable as if they had been sustained inside the pertinent state.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-35(c) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 25-5-35(d) — 10 cases
Ex Parte Fluor Corp., 960 So. 2d 701 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).
“1989), this court implicitly established such an exception when it reviewed, by petition for the writ of mandamus, the denial of an employer's motion to dismiss grounded on an assertion that the trial court, pursuant to § 25-5-35, Ala.Code 1975, lacked subject-matter…”
Ex Parte Fluor Contractors Int'l, 772 So. 2d 1157 (Ala. 2000).
“The words in § 25-5-35(b), given their plain meaning, do not require that, in order for a worker's employment to be "principally localized" within a particular state, the employer's headquarters or corporate office be in that state, but merely that the employee work for that…”
Gillaspy v. S. Erectors, Inc., 161 So. 3d 1224 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“This court may review the denial of a motion for a summary judgment grounded on an assertion that the trial court, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-35, lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.”
Bailey v. Lost River Oilfield Servs., LLC, 167 So. 3d 371 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“§ 25-5-35(b), Ala.Code 1975. Because [the employee’s] employment was principally localized in Georgia at the time of his alleged out-of-state injury, § 25-5-35(d)(2) does not grant the trial court subject-matter jurisdiction over [the employee’s] workers’ compensation claim.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-35(d)(1) — 2 cases
Seales by Seales v. Daniel Const. Co., Inc., 469 So. 2d 629 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
“The parties agree that Seales' right to workmen's compensation benefits under Alabama law is controlled by § 25-5-35, Code of Alabama 1975. This section allows recovery of benefits for out-of-state injuries in certain cases.”
Presley v. Dalton Logistics, 167 So. 3d 337 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“However, that statute serves the same purpose in North Dakota as Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-35, serves in Alabama: to set forth which injuries sustained outside the pertinent state may nonetheless be compensable as if they had been sustained inside the pertinent state.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-35(d)(2) — 6 cases
Ex Parte Fluor Corp., 960 So. 2d 701 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).
“1989), this court implicitly established such an exception when it reviewed, by petition for the writ of mandamus, the denial of an employer's motion to dismiss grounded on an assertion that the trial court, pursuant to § 25-5-35, Ala.Code 1975, lacked subject-matter…”
Heartland Express v. Gardner, 675 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa 2004).
“See Model Act §§ 7(a)(2), (d)(4); see also Ala.Code § 25-5-35(d)(2) (2000); Ky. Rev.”
Bailey v. Lost River Oilfield Servs., LLC, 167 So. 3d 371 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“§ 25-5-35(b), Ala.Code 1975. Because [the employee’s] employment was principally localized in Georgia at the time of his alleged out-of-state injury, § 25-5-35(d)(2) does not grant the trial court subject-matter jurisdiction over [the employee’s] workers’ compensation claim.”
Seales by Seales v. Daniel Const. Co., Inc., 469 So. 2d 629 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
“The parties agree that Seales' right to workmen's compensation benefits under Alabama law is controlled by § 25-5-35, Code of Alabama 1975. This section allows recovery of benefits for out-of-state injuries in certain cases.”
Gillaspy v. S. Erectors, Inc., 161 So. 3d 1224 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“This court may review the denial of a motion for a summary judgment grounded on an assertion that the trial court, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-35, lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-35(d)(3) — 4 cases
Ex Parte Fluor Corp., 960 So. 2d 701 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).
“1989), this court implicitly established such an exception when it reviewed, by petition for the writ of mandamus, the denial of an employer's motion to dismiss grounded on an assertion that the trial court, pursuant to § 25-5-35, Ala.Code 1975, lacked subject-matter…”
Ex Parte Fluor Contractors Int'l, 772 So. 2d 1157 (Ala. 2000).
“The words in § 25-5-35(b), given their plain meaning, do not require that, in order for a worker's employment to be "principally localized" within a particular state, the employer's headquarters or corporate office be in that state, but merely that the employee work for that…”
Bailey v. Lost River Oilfield Servs., LLC, 167 So. 3d 371 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“§ 25-5-35(b), Ala.Code 1975. Because [the employee’s] employment was principally localized in Georgia at the time of his alleged out-of-state injury, § 25-5-35(d)(2) does not grant the trial court subject-matter jurisdiction over [the employee’s] workers’ compensation claim.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-35(e) — 3 cases
Robert Burton & Assocs., Ltd. v. Morris, 999 So. 2d 932 (Ala. 2008).
“” It follows that § 25-5-80 is appropriately read in para maten a with § 25-5-35 and that the term “benefits” includes benefits paid in other states.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-35(f) — 1 case
Norris v. Taylor, 460 So. 2d 151 (Ala. 1984).
“I would agree with this conclusion, if his argument were based on the factual premise that the injured employee had elected to pursue his remedy under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act (§ 25-5-35) as opposed to the Kentucky Workmen's Compensation Act.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-35(g) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.