Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 25-5-58 (2026)

Effect of Preexisting Injuries or Infirmities.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If the degree or duration of disability resulting from an accident is increased or prolonged because of a preexisting injury or infirmity, the employer shall be liable only for the disability that would have resulted from the accident had the earlier injury or infirmity not existed.

(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7561; Code 1940, T. 26, §288.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases, 1980–2014 · leading case: Grace v. Stand. Furniture Mfg. Co., 54 So. 3d 909 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
Grace v. Stand. Furniture Mfg. Co., 54 So. 3d 909 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). · cites it 16× “Grace further relies on Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-58, and the cases construing it.”
Francis Powell Enter., Inc. v. Andrews, 21 So. 3d 726 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “urt’s finding of proper notice is not supported by substantial evidence; (3) that the trial court’s finding of medical causation is not supported by substantial evidence; (4) that Andrews’s receipt of Social Security disability benefits estops him from denying that he was…”
Alamo v. Pch Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 987 So. 2d 598 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “In the context of apportionment of compensation, Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-58, provides: "If the degree or duration of disability resulting from an accident is increased or prolonged because of a preexisting injury or infirmity, the employer shall be liable only for the disability…”
Equip. Sales Corp. v. Gwin, 4 So. 3d 1125 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “and § 25-5-58. Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case.”
Fort James Operating Co. v. Thompson, 871 So. 2d 44 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Code 1975 The employer argues that the trial court erred by not reducing the benefits owed to the employee because the employee had a pre-existing condition.”
Thompson & Co. Contractors v. Cole, 391 So. 2d 1042 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Thompson says next that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to apply the provisions of § 25-5-57(a)(4)e and f, and § 25-5-58, Code of Alabama 1975 to Cole's preexisting injury or disability.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bratton, 678 So. 2d 1071 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-58. It is my opinion that one may be disabled for one purpose without being disabled for another purpose.”
Middleton v. Dan River, Inc., 617 F. Supp. 1206 (M.D. Ala. 1985). · cites it 3× “1975 Ala.Code § 25-5-58 excuses the employer from liability for that “degree or duration of disability .”
Red Mountain Const. Co. v. Neely, 627 So. 2d 931 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Red Mountain argues that at least a portion of Neely's disability resulted from a pre-existing condition, and that the percentage of disability awarded to him should be reduced accordingly, citing Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-58, for support. The record reveals that Neely had suffered…”
G.A. West & Co. v. Johnston, 92 So. 3d 74 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “West next argues that “the trial court erred when it failed to allocate even a portion of [Johnston’s] alleged disability to his previous injuries pursuant to Ala.”
Water Works Bd. of Birmingham v. Isom, 56 So. 3d 659 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “and § 25-5-58, Ala.Code 1975, the Board argues that “the trial court erred in failing to apportion Isom’s disability between [the 2003 injury] and impairment and his alleged [2006 injury] and impairment” and that Isom was not entitled to any additional payments beyond those…”
Pike Cnty. Comm'n v. Green, 740 So. 2d 1076 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “Second, it argues that as a matter of policy, this court should apply § 25-5-58, Ala. Code 1975, to bar workers’ compensation benefits if a work-related injury is aggravated by a non-work-related act, because, it says, the statute is applied to allow compensation when a…”
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.