Judges vacated a pre-trial order to schedule a second-opinion appointment
Being generous with an injured worker's medical care doesn't have to cost an employer the right to challenge whether the injury is even work-related.
That's the practical lesson from an Alabama Court of Civil Appeals decision released on July 17, 2026, which handed Waterville USA, Inc. a procedural reset in a long-running workers' compensation fight.
Here's how it unfolded. In February 2025, a worker sued under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, saying a June 2021 accident on the job had injured her head, left shoulder, and back. The employer contested it from the outset. Its June 2025 answer denied it was "liable … for medical benefits" and disputed that she had "suffered any permanent injury as a result of the alleged accident."
Even so, the company had been paying for her care. When her authorized treating physician wanted to send her to another doctor for "a second opinion consultation," and the employer didn't book it, she asked the court to force the appointment.
This is the moment HR and risk teams should watch. The employer argued it had provided treatment "without admission of liability," and that no judge could order more care until a trial actually decided the injury was covered. It also noted the treating physician had already placed her at maximum medical improvement - the point where a condition isn't expected to get better - back in March 2023.
The trial court ordered the appointment anyway. The employer took it up the chain through a writ of mandamus, essentially asking a higher court to tell the lower one it got the procedure wrong.
The appeals court agreed. A judge, it held, can't decide on a pre-trial motion that an employer must fund treatment - except through the formal routes of judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. Neither was used, and no evidentiary hearing had happened. The worker herself conceded the order came "in the pre-trial litigation phase," with "no testimony taken and no record other than the pleadings."
Why it matters to your function: employers often provide early medical care to an injured worker out of goodwill or speed, then worry that gesture quietly concedes the claim. Under Alabama law, it doesn't. Payments made before any agreement or award count as "advance payments," not an admission of liability - so compassion at the front end doesn't forfeit your defense at the back end.
The court granted the petition and directed the order vacated. The opinion is a slip decision, subject to revision before official publication, and the worker's underlying compensation claim is still unresolved.
