Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 25-5-59 (2026)
Waiting Period for Compensation; Penalty for Overdue Compensation Payments.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) For purposes of this article, except for scheduled injuries as provided in Section 25-5-57(a)(3), compensation for the first three days of disability shall not be payable, nor shall compensation be paid in any case unless the employer has actual knowledge of the injury or is notified thereof within the period specified in Section 25-5-78.
(b) Compensation shall begin with the fourth day after disability, and if the disability from the injury exists for a period as much as 21 days, compensation for the first three days after the injury shall be added to and payable with the first installment due the employee after the expiration of the 21 days. If any installment of compensation payable is not paid without good cause within 30 days after it becomes due, there shall be added to the unpaid installment an amount equal to 15 percent thereof, which shall be paid at the same time as, but in addition to, the installment.
(Code 1923, §7566; Acts 1939, No. 661, p. 1036, §5; Code 1940, T. 26, §292; Acts 1955, No. 351, p. 850; Acts 1971, No. 667, p. 1376, §7; Acts 1973, No. 1062, p. 1750, §20; Acts 1992, No. 92-537, p. 1082, §18.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kennedy, 799 So. 2d 188 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kennedy, 799 So. 2d 188 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). “On the date that the case was tried, Kennedy, pursuant to § 25-5-59(b), Ala.Code 1975, petitioned the court to assess a 15% penalty on the amount of compensation that she alleged was due from April 21, 1997, until the date of trial.”
Lowman v. Piedmont Exec. Shirt Mfg. Co., 547 So. 2d 90 (Ala. 1989). “Indeed, under the provisions of § 25-5-59, it is not necessary to allege or prove any element beyond the statutorily proscribed delay in payment of benefits, in order to recover the prescribed penalty. Again, we agree with the reasoning of Professor Larson: "It seems clear that…”
Read News Agency, Inc. v. Moman, 383 So. 2d 840 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980). “Next, the plaintiff contends on cross-appeal that the trial court erred in not awarding the 10% penalty against the defendants as provided by § 25-5-59, Code of Ala.1975. This section provides a 10% penalty where any installment of compensation payable is not paid without good…”
Wooley v. Shewbart, 569 So. 2d 712 (Ala. 1990). “) We note that the holding in Oliver does not discuss whether the provisions of § 25-5-59 would have been applicable in that case.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Muilenburg, 990 So. 2d 434 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Therefore, I concur in the main opinion's decision to reverse that portion of the trial court's judgment awarding the employee the additional 15% penalty provided for in Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-59. NOTES [1] As our supreme court has stated: "We use the word `idiopathic' as it is…”
Hobbs v. Alabama Power Co., 775 So. 2d 783 (Ala. 2000). “The penalty for untimely payment of workmen's compensation benefits is provided in § 25-5-59. Indeed, under the provisions of § 25-5-59, it is not necessary to allege or prove any element beyond the statutorily proscribed delay in payment of benefits, in order to recover the…”
BE & K, INC. v. Weaver, 743 So. 2d 476 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). “"The employee is awarded a judgment pursuant to § 25-5-59 in the amount of Eight Hundred Twenty Nine and 03/100 [dollars] ($82[9].”
Smith v. Scott Paper Co., 620 So. 2d 976 (Ala. 1993). “In attempting to show that Scott Paper had failed to pay without good cause, Smith introduced evidence that Scott Paper had tried to coerce him into claiming benefits under its accident and sickness ("A & S") insurance, which covered non-work-related injuries, rather than…”
House v. Corp. Servs., Inc., 882 F. Supp. 161 (M.D. Ala. 1995). “3 Here, Plaintiff has offered nothing in support of their allegation of bad faith failure to *164 pay that would controvert Defendant’s explanation of unintentional oversight and ordinary delays due to the volume of medical bills presented for payment.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bush, 160 So. 3d 787 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “See § 25-5-59(b), Ala.Code 1975. The employer filed a second post-judgment motion directed at the amended portions of the final judgment, 1 which the *790 trial court granted in part and denied in part on October 29, 2013.”
Equity Grp.-Alabama Div. v. Harris, 55 So. 3d 299 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “1999), our Supreme Court explained that written notice is not required because “ ‘ “after reading the language now codified at § 25-5-78 in pari mate-ria with that codified at §§ 25-5-59 and 25-5-88[, Ala.Code 1975,] .”
Haywood v. Russell Corp., 611 So. 2d 365 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). “Section 25-5-59, Code 1975, provides for an employer to be assessed a 10% penalty for failure to timely pay workmen's compensation without good cause.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-59(b) — 12 cases
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kennedy, 799 So. 2d 188 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). “On the date that the case was tried, Kennedy, pursuant to § 25-5-59(b), Ala.Code 1975, petitioned the court to assess a 15% penalty on the amount of compensation that she alleged was due from April 21, 1997, until the date of trial.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Muilenburg, 990 So. 2d 434 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Therefore, I concur in the main opinion's decision to reverse that portion of the trial court's judgment awarding the employee the additional 15% penalty provided for in Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-59. NOTES [1] As our supreme court has stated: "We use the word `idiopathic' as it is…”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bush, 160 So. 3d 787 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “See § 25-5-59(b), Ala.Code 1975. The employer filed a second post-judgment motion directed at the amended portions of the final judgment, 1 which the *790 trial court granted in part and denied in part on October 29, 2013.”
Hobbs v. Alabama Power Co., 775 So. 2d 783 (Ala. 2000). “The penalty for untimely payment of workmen's compensation benefits is provided in § 25-5-59. Indeed, under the provisions of § 25-5-59, it is not necessary to allege or prove any element beyond the statutorily proscribed delay in payment of benefits, in order to recover the…”
Fort James Operating Co. v. Thompson, 871 So. 2d 44 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
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.