If an employer is subject to this article, compensation, according to the schedules hereinafter contained, shall be paid by the employer, or those conducting the business during bankruptcy or insolvency, in every case of personal injury or death of his or her employee caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his or her employment, without regard to any question of negligence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no compensation shall be allowed for an injury or death caused by the willful misconduct of the employee, by the employee’s intention to bring about the injury or death of himself or herself or of another, his or her willful failure or willful refusal to use safety appliances provided by the employer or by an accident due to the injured employee being intoxicated from the use of alcohol or being impaired by illegal drugs.
A positive drug test conducted and evaluated pursuant to standards adopted for drug testing by the U.S. Department of Transportation in 49 C.F.R. Part 40 shall be a conclusive presumption of impairment resulting from the use of illegal drugs. No compensation shall be allowed if the employee refuses to submit to or cooperate with a blood or urine test as set forth above after the accident after being warned in writing by the employer that such refusal would forfeit the employee’s right to recover benefits under this chapter.
No compensation shall be allowed if, at the time of or in the course of entering into employment or at the time of receiving notice of the removal of conditions from a conditional offer of employment, the employee knowingly and falsely misrepresents in writing his or her physical or mental condition and the condition is aggravated or reinjured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his or her employment.
At the time an employer makes an unconditional offer of employment or removes conditions previously placed on a conditional offer of employment, the employer shall provide the employee with the following written warning in bold type print, “Misrepresentations as to preexisting physical or mental conditions may void your workers’ compensation benefits.” If the employer defends on the ground that the injury arose in any or all of the last above stated ways, the burden of proof shall be on the employer to establish the defense.
(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7544; Code 1940, T. 26, §270; Acts 1973, No. 1062, p. 1750, §7; Acts 1984, 2nd Ex. Sess., No. 85-41, p. 44, §4; Acts 1992, No. 92-537, p. 1082, §11.)
Notes of Decisions
Scott A. Cascaden v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC., 81 So. 3d 1273 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 16× “Relying on § 25-5-51, it argued that Cascaden’s claims were barred because he had misrepresented his medical history in his employment application.”
Lowman v. Piedmont Exec. Shirt Mfg. Co., 547 So. 2d 90 (Ala. 1989).
· cites it 3× “Such a position is clearly in line with prior decisions of the Alabama appellate courts: "The Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act makes it clear that it is an exclusive remedy only in situations where an employee is suing his employer for injury in the course of his employment.”
Brown v. Patton, 77 So. 3d 591 (Ala. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Code 1975, taken together, an employer must pay compensation for, and provide medical benefits as to, its employee’s injury that is caused by ‘an accident arising out of and in the course of [his or her] employment’ without regard to the negligence of the employer or the…”
Blue Water Catfish, Inc. v. Hall, 667 So. 2d 110 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
· cites it 7× “Blue Water relies on those affirmative defenses allowed employers under Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-51. Section 25-5-51 provides that "no compensation shall be allowed for an injury or death caused by the willful misconduct of the employee, .”
Meeks v. Thompson Tractor Co., 686 So. 2d 1213 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Section § 25-5-51, Ala.Code 1975, requires that the children prove that Meeks's death was caused by "an accident arising out of and in the course of his .”
Parker v. Thyssen Min. Const., Inc., 428 So. 2d 615 (Ala. 1983).
· cites it 2× “1981); Ala.Code 1975, §§ 25-5-51, 25-5-53. Rather, Parker claims economic injury as a result of TMCI's actions following his injury from the collapsed wall.”
G.A. West & Co. v. Johnston, 92 So. 3d 74 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “West argues first and foremost that Johnston’s failure to reveal on his medical questionnaire that he had had hip-replacement surgeries, that he had been prescribed Mobic, and that he had had back problems amounted to misrepresentations of his physical condition and, therefore,…”
BE & K, INC. v. Weaver, 801 So. 2d 12 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Weaver contends that his injuries resulted from his continuous and repetitive lifting over a period of 5 to 10 days while he was employed with B E & K. For an injury to be compensable, it must be "caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employee's…”
BE & K, INC. v. Weaver, 743 So. 2d 476 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “B E & K alleged that it had learned of certain misrepresentations that Weaver had made regarding his prior physical history, and it sought to estop Weaver from claiming benefits, because of these misrepresentations, pursuant to § 25-5-51, Ala.Code 1975. In the alternative, B E &…”
Reed v. Brunson, 527 So. 2d 102 (Ala. 1988).
“(Section 7, now § 25-5-68); modified § 25-5-57, to comply with the new statute of limitations (Section 6); limited the grounds for denial of compensation under the Act to willful refusal or willful neglect to perform a statutory duty or other willful violation or willful breach…”
Musgrove Constr., Inc. v. Malley, 912 So. 2d 227 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “The company appeals, arguing that, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-51, the worker's willful misconduct in violating company safety rules requiring him to wear rubber gloves while working within reach of an energized power line and to wear a safety harness and lanyard while in…”
Francis Powell Enter., Inc. v. Andrews, 21 So. 3d 726 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Code 1975, and that Andrews had failed to disclose a preexisting physical condition in violation of § 25-5-51, Ala. Code 1975. On remand, the trial court entered a judgment on May 9, 2008, with amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining that Andrews had given…”
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.