Ala. Code » Title 25 · Chapter 5 · Article 3

Ala. Code § 25-5-81

Determination of Disputed Compensation Claims Generally

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 25-5-81

Determination of Disputed Compensation Claims Generally.

(a) Commencement of action in circuit court.

(1) PROCEDURE. In case of a dispute between employer and employee or between the dependents of a deceased employee and the employer with respect to the right to compensation under this article and Article 2 of this chapter, or the amount thereof, either party may submit the controversy to the circuit court of the county which would have jurisdiction of a civil action in tort between the parties. The controversy shall be heard and determined by the judge who would hear and determine a civil action between the same parties arising out of tort, and, in case there is more than one judge of the court, the controversies shall be set and assigned for hearing under the same rules and statutes that civil actions in tort are set and assigned. The court may hear and determine the controversies in a summary manner. The decision of the judge hearing the same shall be conclusive and binding between the parties, subject to the right of appeal provided for in this article.

(2) RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL. When willful misconduct on the part of the employee is set up by the employer, as it is provided for in this article, the employer may, upon appearing, demand a jury to hear and determine, under the direction of the court, the issues involved in this defense. If the employer fails to demand a jury upon appearing, the employee may demand a jury to try the issues by filing a demand within five days after the appearance of the employer. When a jury is demanded by either party, the court shall submit the issues of fact as to willful misconduct set up by the employer to the jury, for a special finding of the facts subject to the usual powers of the court over verdicts rendered contrary to the evidence or the law, but the judge shall determine all other questions involved in the controversy without a jury. Upon setting up the defense, the employer shall serve a copy of the answer, setting up the defense, upon the employee or the attorney of record.

(b) Court deemed open at all times. For the purpose of hearing and determining controversies between an employer and employee or the dependents of a deceased employee and the employer arising under this article and Article 2 of this chapter, the circuit court shall be deemed always in session.

(c) Evidence. The decision of the court shall be based on a preponderance of the evidence as contained in the record of the hearing, except in cases involving injuries which have resulted from gradual deterioration or cumulative physical stress disorders, which shall be deemed compensable only upon a finding of clear and convincing proof that those injuries arose out of and in the course of the employee’s employment.

For the purposes of this amendatory act, “clear and convincing” shall mean evidence that, when weighted against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion. Proof by clear and convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence or the substantial weight of the evidence, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

(d) Interpleader of adverse claimants to compensation. If at any time there are adverse claimants to compensation under this article, the employer, in submitting the claim to the circuit court, may suggest in writing the claimants, and they shall be required to interplead. The court shall determine and order to which claimant or claimants compensation is justly due, and the employer, upon complying with the order of the judge, shall be released from the claims of any other claimants thereto.

(e) Review. From an order or judgment, any aggrieved party may, within 42 days thereafter, appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals and review shall be as in cases reviewed as follows:

(1) In reviewing the standard of proof set forth herein and other legal issues, review by the Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a presumption of correctness.

(2) In reviewing pure findings of fact, the finding of the circuit court shall not be reversed if that finding is supported by substantial evidence.

(f) Discovery. Methods of discovery shall be determined and established in rules promulgated by this amendatory act and the rules established by the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure with the limitations of pre-trial discovery as set forth below. Additionally, the following rules of discovery shall apply to workers’ compensation cases:

(1) Two depositions for each side shall be permitted without leave of court, however, any additional depositions shall not be permitted except with leave of court for good cause shown including, but not limited to, a claim by the employee for permanent total disability.

(2) Notwithstanding the limitations in (1) above, each party may take the deposition of every other party.

(3) No more than 25 interrogatory questions with each sub-part to be considered a question shall be permitted without leave of court for good cause shown.

(4) Certified sealed copies of records of medical treatment and charges therefor, whether from a physician, hospital, clinic, or other provider, shall be authenticated in accordance with Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 44(h), without further need for authenticating testimony. Copies of records obtained by one party shall be furnished by certified mail to the other party not less than 21 days prior to trial, unless the party offering the records can establish unusual circumstances justifying their admission despite the failure to make the exchange after receiving the records of a physician’s treatment prior to trial, the party not offering the records of a physician’s treatment shall, without regard to the limitation set forth herein, have the right to depose prior to trial the physician whose records of treatment are to be offered by any other party.

It is the intent of this section that limited discovery shall be available.

(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7571; Code 1940, T. 26, §297; Acts 1992, No. 92-537, p. 1082, §26.)

Previous Next
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Alabama may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 367 cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: KGS Steel, Inc. v. McInish
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
KGS Steel, Inc. v. McInish (2008) ala · cites it 21× “Although the statutorily prescribed substantial-evidence standard of appellate review found in § 25-5-81 (e) draws no distinction between the preponderanee-of-the-evidence standard of proof and the clear- and-convineing-evidence standard of proof, nevertheless, the two standards…”
KGS Steel, Inc. v. McInish (2006) alacivapp · cites it 44× “92-537, among other things, amended § 25-5-81, Ala.Code 1975, to state that the standard of proof in workers' *752 compensation cases would be proof by the preponderance of the evidence "except in cases involving injuries which have resulted from gradual deterioration or…”
Ex Parte Trinity Industries, Inc. (1996) ala · cites it 16× “Also, it has, for all practical purposes, repealed the standard of proof requirements that the Legislature established under § 25-5-81. The potential for recovery on invalid workers' compensation claims, based on the holding of the majority opinion, is unlimited.”
Ex Parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (2003) ala · cites it 19× “" See § 25-5-81(c). The main opinion apparently has reweighed the evidence Riddle presented as to her fall from the ladder, which the trial court obviously found credible, and rejected it in favor of the view that Riddle's injury was nonaccidental.”
Landers v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC. (2007) alacivapp · cites it 16× “Standard of Review The standard of review of workers’ compensation judgments is established by Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-81 (e), which provides: “(1) In reviewing the standard of proof set forth herein and other legal issues, review by the Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a…”
Ex Parte USX Corp. (2003) ala · cites it 9× “If the trial court determines that the injury was caused by a one-time acute trauma or accident, the preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof will apply, in accordance with the burdens set forth by the Legislature in § 25-5-81, Ala.Code 1975. The Court of Civil Appeals was…”
Werner Co. v. Williams (2003) alacivapp · cites it 10× “2d at 269 , and Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(c). The company also argues that the worker's injury is to a scheduled member.”
Ex Parte Russell Corporation (1998) ala · cites it 15× “92-537, codified at § 25-5-81, the Legislature modified the law regarding the evidentiary standard to be applied to workers' compensation cases involving injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome.”
International Paper Co. v. Melton (2003) alacivapp · cites it 9× “" Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(c) (emphasis added).”
Ex Parte Prof. Bus. Owners Ass'n Wkrs. Comp. Fund (2003) ala · cites it 5× “"When the trial court receives ore tenus evidence in a workers' compensation action, its findings of fact based on that testimony are entitled to a presumption of correctness on appeal, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a determination that those findings are…”
SOUTHERNCARE, INC. v. Cowart (2009) alacivapp · cites it 9× “SouthernCare argues in its statement of jurisdiction that the "interim judgment" is a final judgment for purposes of appeal because Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81 (e), provides that an aggrieved party may appeal to this court from "an order or judgment" entered by the circuit court in…”
D & E Investments, L.L.C. v. Singleton (2007) alacivapp · cites it 11× “Code 1975 (“the Act”), “[i]n reviewing pure findings of fact, the finding of the circuit court shall not be reversed if that finding is supported by substantial evidence.”
Show all 367 citing cases →
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(2) — 1 case
Morrow v. Dillard (2017) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(a) — 5 cases
Landers v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC. (2007) alacivapp “Standard of Review The standard of review of workers’ compensation judgments is established by Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-81 (e), which provides: “(1) In reviewing the standard of proof set forth herein and other legal issues, review by the Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a…”
D & E Investments, L.L.C. v. Singleton (2007) alacivapp “Code 1975 (“the Act”), “[i]n reviewing pure findings of fact, the finding of the circuit court shall not be reversed if that finding is supported by substantial evidence.”
Ex parte Baptist Health System, Inc. (2016) alacivapp
Heathcoe v. Billy Barnes Enterprises (2012) alacivapp
Ex parte Associated General Contractors Workers' Compensation Self-Insurers Fund, Alabama Branch (2017) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(a)(1) — 15 cases
Ex Parte Southeast Alabama Medical Center (2002) alacivapp
Ex Parte Cowabunga, Inc. (2011) alacivapp
SOUTHERNCARE, INC. v. Cowart (2009) alacivapp “SouthernCare argues in its statement of jurisdiction that the "interim judgment" is a final judgment for purposes of appeal because Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81 (e), provides that an aggrieved party may appeal to this court from "an order or judgment" entered by the circuit court in…”
Ward v. Check Into Cash of Alabama, LLC (2007) alacivapp
Fleet Force, Inc. v. Adams (2008) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(a)(2) — 2 cases
Smith v. Scott Paper Co. (1993) ala
Page v. Southern Care, Inc. (2016) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(a)(l) — 10 cases
Ex Parte Cowabunga, Inc. (2011) alacivapp
SOUTHERNCARE, INC. v. Cowart (2009) alacivapp “SouthernCare argues in its statement of jurisdiction that the "interim judgment" is a final judgment for purposes of appeal because Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81 (e), provides that an aggrieved party may appeal to this court from "an order or judgment" entered by the circuit court in…”
Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Mitchell (2015) alacivapp
Durgin v. Fairhope Health & Rehab, LLC (2015) alacivapp
Cavalier Homes of Alabama, Inc. v. Brown (1995) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(c) — 97 cases
KGS Steel, Inc. v. McInish (2006) alacivapp “92-537, among other things, amended § 25-5-81, Ala.Code 1975, to state that the standard of proof in workers' *752 compensation cases would be proof by the preponderance of the evidence "except in cases involving injuries which have resulted from gradual deterioration or…”
KGS Steel, Inc. v. McInish (2008) ala “Although the statutorily prescribed substantial-evidence standard of appellate review found in § 25-5-81 (e) draws no distinction between the preponderanee-of-the-evidence standard of proof and the clear- and-convineing-evidence standard of proof, nevertheless, the two standards…”
Ex Parte Trinity Industries, Inc. (1996) ala “Also, it has, for all practical purposes, repealed the standard of proof requirements that the Legislature established under § 25-5-81. The potential for recovery on invalid workers' compensation claims, based on the holding of the majority opinion, is unlimited.”
Ex Parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (2003) ala “" See § 25-5-81(c). The main opinion apparently has reweighed the evidence Riddle presented as to her fall from the ladder, which the trial court obviously found credible, and rejected it in favor of the view that Riddle's injury was nonaccidental.”
International Paper Co. v. Melton (2003) alacivapp “" Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(c) (emphasis added).”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(c)(2) — 3 cases
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Orr (2009) alacivapp
Johnson v. JEFFERSON SMURFIT CORP. (2007) alacivapp
Munkus v. Watts Construction (2004) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(d) — 15 cases
Stack v. Stack (1994) alacivapp
Ex Parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (2003) ala “" See § 25-5-81(c). The main opinion apparently has reweighed the evidence Riddle presented as to her fall from the ladder, which the trial court obviously found credible, and rejected it in favor of the view that Riddle's injury was nonaccidental.”
Dodson v. Atrax Div. of Wallace-Murray Corp. (1983) alacivapp
Cummings Trucking Co., Inc. v. Dean (1993) alacivapp
Schlumberger Industries, Inc. v. Moore (1994) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(e) — 85 cases
KGS Steel, Inc. v. McInish (2008) ala “Although the statutorily prescribed substantial-evidence standard of appellate review found in § 25-5-81 (e) draws no distinction between the preponderanee-of-the-evidence standard of proof and the clear- and-convineing-evidence standard of proof, nevertheless, the two standards…”
KGS Steel, Inc. v. McInish (2006) alacivapp “92-537, among other things, amended § 25-5-81, Ala.Code 1975, to state that the standard of proof in workers' *752 compensation cases would be proof by the preponderance of the evidence "except in cases involving injuries which have resulted from gradual deterioration or…”
Ex Parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (2003) ala “" See § 25-5-81(c). The main opinion apparently has reweighed the evidence Riddle presented as to her fall from the ladder, which the trial court obviously found credible, and rejected it in favor of the view that Riddle's injury was nonaccidental.”
Ex Parte Trinity Industries, Inc. (1996) ala “Also, it has, for all practical purposes, repealed the standard of proof requirements that the Legislature established under § 25-5-81. The potential for recovery on invalid workers' compensation claims, based on the holding of the majority opinion, is unlimited.”
Ex Parte Drummond Co., Inc. (2002) ala
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(e)(1) — 84 cases
Ex Parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (2003) ala “" See § 25-5-81(c). The main opinion apparently has reweighed the evidence Riddle presented as to her fall from the ladder, which the trial court obviously found credible, and rejected it in favor of the view that Riddle's injury was nonaccidental.”
KGS Steel, Inc. v. McInish (2006) alacivapp “92-537, among other things, amended § 25-5-81, Ala.Code 1975, to state that the standard of proof in workers' *752 compensation cases would be proof by the preponderance of the evidence "except in cases involving injuries which have resulted from gradual deterioration or…”
Ex Parte Trinity Industries, Inc. (1996) ala “Also, it has, for all practical purposes, repealed the standard of proof requirements that the Legislature established under § 25-5-81. The potential for recovery on invalid workers' compensation claims, based on the holding of the majority opinion, is unlimited.”
Ex Parte Prof. Bus. Owners Ass'n Wkrs. Comp. Fund (2003) ala “"When the trial court receives ore tenus evidence in a workers' compensation action, its findings of fact based on that testimony are entitled to a presumption of correctness on appeal, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a determination that those findings are…”
Ex Parte USX Corp. (2003) ala “If the trial court determines that the injury was caused by a one-time acute trauma or accident, the preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof will apply, in accordance with the burdens set forth by the Legislature in § 25-5-81, Ala.Code 1975. The Court of Civil Appeals was…”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(e)(1)(2) — 1 case
Pearson v. Reflector Hardware Corp. (1997) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(e)(2) — 176 cases
Ex Parte Trinity Industries, Inc. (1996) ala “Also, it has, for all practical purposes, repealed the standard of proof requirements that the Legislature established under § 25-5-81. The potential for recovery on invalid workers' compensation claims, based on the holding of the majority opinion, is unlimited.”
Ex Parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (2003) ala “" See § 25-5-81(c). The main opinion apparently has reweighed the evidence Riddle presented as to her fall from the ladder, which the trial court obviously found credible, and rejected it in favor of the view that Riddle's injury was nonaccidental.”
Landers v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC. (2007) alacivapp “Standard of Review The standard of review of workers’ compensation judgments is established by Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-81 (e), which provides: “(1) In reviewing the standard of proof set forth herein and other legal issues, review by the Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a…”
Musgrove Constr., Inc. v. Malley (2005) alacivapp
Stack v. Stack (1994) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(e)(l) — 27 cases
Caseco, LLC v. Dingman (2010) alacivapp
Matthew's Masonry Co. v. Aldridge (2009) alacivapp
James River Corp. v. Bolton (2008) alacivapp
GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO., INC. v. Long (2009) alacivapp
Harris v. RUSSELL PETROLEUM CORP. (2010) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(f) — 2 cases
Ex Parte American Color Graphics, Inc. (2002) ala
American Color Graphics, Inc. v. Foster (2001) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(f)(1) — 1 case
Augmentation, Inc. v. Harris (2016) alacivapp
— Ala. Code § 25-5-81(f)(4) — 3 cases
Werner Co. v. Williams (2003) alacivapp “2d at 269 , and Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-81(c). The company also argues that the worker's injury is to a scheduled member.”
Ex Parte American Color Graphics, Inc. (2002) ala
American Color Graphics, Inc. v. Foster (2001) alacivapp
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.