Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 25-5-88 (2026)

Proceedings for Determination of Disputed Claims for Compensation - Commencement of Action, Etc.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

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

Either party to a controversy arising under this article and Article 2 of this chapter may file a verified complaint in the circuit court of the county which would have jurisdiction of an action between the same parties arising out of tort, which shall set forth the names and residences of the parties and the circumstances relating to the employment at the time of the injury, with a full description of the injury, its nature and extent, the amount of the average earnings received by the employee which would affect his compensation under this article and Article 2 of this chapter, the knowledge of the employer of the injury or the notice to him thereof, which must be of the kind provided for in this article and Article 2 of this chapter and such other facts as may be necessary to enable the court to determine what, if any, compensation the employee or, in case of a deceased employee, his dependents, are entitled to under this article and Article 2 of this chapter. The complaint shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court, who shall cause summons to be issued thereon requiring the defendant to come in and answer said complaint within 30 days of the service thereof. Thereafter, said action shall proceed in accordance with and shall be governed by the same rules and statutes as govern civil actions, except as otherwise provided in this article and Article 2 of this chapter, and except that all civil actions filed hereunder shall be preferred actions and shall be set down and tried as expeditiously as possible. At the hearing or any adjournment thereof the court shall hear such witnesses as may be presented by each party, and in a summary manner without a jury, unless one is demanded to try the issue of willful misconduct on the part of the employee, shall decide the controversy. This determination shall be filed in writing with the clerk of said court, and judgment shall be entered thereon in the same manner as in civil actions tried in the said circuit court and shall contain a statement of the law and facts and conclusions as determined by said judge. Subsequent proceedings thereon shall only be for the recovery of moneys thereby determined to be due, but nothing in this section contained shall be construed as limiting the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals to review questions of law by certiorari.

(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7578; Code 1940, T. 26, §304; Acts 1957, No. 350, p. 460.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 126 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Ex Parte Cowabunga, Inc..

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ex Parte Cowabunga, Inc. (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). · cites it 36× “e employee's injury and the right of the employee to medical benefits under the Act, but it did not file the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law, stating in its judgment only that the employee had sustained a personal injury due to an accident arising out of and in…”

Landers v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). · cites it 12× “The employee basically requests this court to reverse the trial court's judgment based on the trial court's alleged failure to issue proper findings of fact, without considering whether the trial court's ultimate finding of fact that the employee sustained a 75% permanent…”

Sign Plex v. Tholl (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “See § 25-5-88, Ala.Code 1975. The following is well settled: "`Section 25-5-88, Ala.”

Sci Alabama Funeral Servs. v. Hester (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “2d at 1164 (quoting Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-88). This court further clarified that the trial court's purported reservation of jurisdiction to consider the issue of permanent disability was "mere surplusage," because the Workers' Compensation Act gave the employee the right to file…”

Werner Co. v. Williams (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “Code 1975, § 25-5-88 At the outset, we note that the company indicates that it believes the trial court, in its judgment, has made insufficient findings under Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-88, or that the findings are, if not insufficient, at the least, meager and omissive.”

Ex Parte Sunbelt Transp., Inc. (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “This court concluded that Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-88, mandates that a trial court must resolve any controversy between the parties regarding a worker's entitlement to medical treatment in accordance with the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Belcher-Robinson Foundry, LLC v. Narr (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “In its petition, the employer asserted not only that the trial court had erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Act, see Ala.”

Regions Bank v. Allen (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “" ' "The purpose of Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-88, is to 'ensure sufficiently detailed findings so that the appellate court can determine whether the judgment is supported by the facts.”

Ex Parte Publix Super Markets, Inc. (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to § 25-5-88, a controversy regarding the employer's obligation to pay for medical or surgical treatment obtained by an employee, just like any other controversy arising under the Act, is governed by the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, unless the Act provides some…”

Total Fire Prot., Inc. v. Jean (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “In dismissing the appeal, this court noted that the trial court had not adjudicated TFP’s liability for all the employee’s medical issues, most specifically his alleged carpal tunnel syndrome, and that the trial court had not included findings of fact and conclusions of law in…”

Fort James Holding Co., Inc. v. Morgan (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “GP argues that the trial court’s judgment fails to comply with Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-88; that the trial court erred in determining that Morgan properly notified GP of her injury, which GP contends occurred in November 2003; that Morgan’s action was filed outside the statutory…”

Norandal U.S.A., Inc. v. Graben (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Because the legislature has declared that it is the trial court's duty to make the appropriate factual findings, see Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-88, we are required to remand the case so that the trial court can make the appropriate findings rather than search the record to reach our…”

Show all 126 citing 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.