Articles Posted in Uncategorized

by HWC Attorney Allwin E. Horn, IV

One of the benefits of the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act is that as long as an employee is injured during the line, scope and course of their employment, payment for “reasonable” and “necessary” medical treatment for life will remain the responsibility of the employer and/or the employer’s insurance company. This general rule applies even if the accident is the fault of the injured worker. Accidents happen! Employees who have suffered on-the-job injuries can attest to how frustrating the process can be in terms of getting medical treatment approved by the workers’ compensation carrier.

Unfortunately, the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act, as a general rule, gives the employer/insurance carrier the right to select who the “authorized treating physicians” will be. There are, however, some exceptions to this rule. The primary exception to the rule is that the employee is entitled to a panel of four physicians to select a new doctor if they become dissatisfied with their present authorized treating physician. However, the employer/insurance carrier gets to select the four physicians who are listed on the panel. These rules and regulations can get complex and truly require the help of an attorney who knows the nuances of Alabama Workers’ Compensation Laws, as well as how insurance carriers operate.

by HWC Attorney Craig Shirley

Unfortunately, there are times when people are falsely arrested, whether intentionally or simply by a mistake in identity. When that does happen, there is a potential for a personal injury claim for false arrest and false imprisonment to be made arising out of that false arrest. In Alabama, false arrest and false imprisonment, while seemingly very similar, are slightly distinguishable. For instance, false imprisonment in Alabama is statutorily defined, as “the unlawful detention of the person of another for any length of time…” Ala. Code § 6-5-170. Conversely, Alabama courts have long held that to constitute an arrest, as person must be taken into custody under real or assumed authority. Davis & Allcott Co. vs. Boozer, 110 So. 28, 29 (Ala. 1926). Accordingly, if a person has been subject to a false arrest, that false arrest will also support a claim for false imprisonment. In that instance, the first question that must be answered is whether the arrest that was made was in fact “false,” and if the answer is no, i.e. the arrest was made pursuant to a valid warrant, then there can be no subsequent action for a false arrest or false imprisonment. Assuming that the arrest was in fact “false,” that leads to a more difficult question to answer: “is the police officer ultimately immune from liability for the false arrest?”

In Alabama, law enforcement officers are granted State-agent immunity under Alabama Code section 6-5-338(a). This statute states that law enforcement officers “shall have immunity from tort liability arising out of his or her conduct in performance of any discretionary function…” Ala. Code § 6-5-338(a). After the legislature enacted the State-agent immunity statute, there were circumstances arising that raised the question of what qualified as a “discretionary function.” The Supreme Court of Alabama addressed that particular issue in Ex parte Cranman when it set out the restatement of the State-agent immunity and provided the test in determining whether a law enforcement officer would be entitled to State-agent immunity under section 6-5-338(a). The Cranman Court Stated:

by HWC Managing Partner Josh Wright

The Alabama Dram Shop Act has been around since 1909, and in pertinent part, has been in place to protect “every wife, child, parent, or other person who was injured in person, property or means of support by any intoxicated person.” Many bars, restaurants, and convenience stores do things the right way, and follow the rules with no liability; those that don’t have answered to Ala. Code Sec. 6-5-71 and well-established Alabama case law for more than 100 years.

In the name of reduced insurance costs for bars, restaurants, and convenience stores, and to increase insurance competition in Alabama, the retailers lobby pushed to change the Alabama Dram Shop Act in the 2023 Legislative Session. But, to what end? The new law changes the proof that is necessary for Alabama victims to pursue alcohol-related dram shop claims against offending bars, restaurants, and convenience stores that break the rules. So, drunk drivers, and those that serve them just got a small win over Alabama’s drunk driving victims.

by HWC Managing Partner Josh Wright

Over the last 20 years HWC Managing Partner Josh Wright has invested a lot of litigation time and firm resources toward co-employee “removal of safety guard” cases and has had great success in that practice area. Over just the last four years, Josh has successfully resolved seven separate cases under a (c)(2) safety device theory.

Josh stated, “lawyers in our state often believe the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act is an absolute bar to cases against co-employees, or believe (c)(2) cases are often not covered by liability insurance. Fortunately, both those beliefs are incorrect. In fact, these cases are almost always covered by insurance. And, the Alabama Supreme Court has not restricted the legislature’s intent—when it carved out from the exclusivity provision co-employee claims many years ago—to protect injured employees who are harmed by the removal of a safety device, or something tantamount to that removal. Co-employee litigation under 25-5-11(c)(2) is alive and well in our State legislatively and under Alabama caselaw.”