Summary
The Supreme Court of Alabama held that a claim for the double-compensation penalty under Ala. Code § 25-5-8(e) is independent of an employee's underlying workers' compensation claim. Accordingly, a motion seeking that penalty is not subject to the time limitations applicable to motions under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded the matter.
Holdings
- The double-compensation penalty provided by § 25-5-8(e) creates a claim or cause of action independent of the employee's underlying claim for workers' compensation benefits.
- A motion seeking the § 25-5-8(e) double-compensation penalty is not a Rule 59(e) motion and is not subject to Rule 59's time limitations.
Questions Presented
- Whether Alabama Code § 25-5-8(e)'s double-compensation penalty creates a claim or cause of action independent of the employee's claim for workers' compensation benefits.
- Whether a motion seeking enforcement of a workers' compensation judgment and double compensation under § 25-5-8(e) is an untimely motion under Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (25)
- MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Ruggs, 891 So. 2d 869 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004)(followed)
- MasterBrand Cabinets v. Ruggs, 945 So. 2d 496 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (table)(followed)
- MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Ruggs, 10 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)(reversed)
- CIGNA Ins. Co. v. Ward, 658 So. 2d 504 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)(followed)
- Highfield's Alignment Serv. v. Scott, 624 So. 2d 630 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)(followed)
- Hester v. Ridings, 388 So. 2d 1218 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980)(followed)
- Christopher v. Hunter, 674 So. 2d 564 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995)(followed)
- Hastings v. Hancock, 576 So. 2d 666 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991)(followed)
- Rush v. Heflin, 411 So. 2d 1295 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982)(followed)
- Harris v. Vaughan, 373 So. 2d 1111 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 25.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…