Ex parte Waterville USA, Inc., No. CL-2026-0390, 2026 WL 2066122 (Ala. Civ. App. July 17, 2026). The Court (Hanson, J.; Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur) grants Waterville USA, Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that an employer that disputes compensability under the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act cannot be compelled to provide additional medical treatment before a judicial determination that the employee sustained a compensable work-related injury. Id. at *2.
Plaintiff sued Waterville USA, Inc., seeking workers’ compensation benefits for an alleged June 2021 workplace accident involving injuries to her head, left shoulder, and back. Id. at *1. Waterville denied liability for medical benefits, disputed that Plaintiff suffered any permanent injury from the alleged accident, and asserted that any disability was caused by some prior, intervening, or subsequent cause. Id.
During the litigation, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel medical treatment, alleging that her authorized treating physician had referred her to another physician for a second-opinion consultation but that Waterville had not scheduled the appointment. Id. Waterville objected, arguing that its earlier voluntary provision of medical benefits was without admission of liability and that it could not be compelled to provide additional medical treatment absent a judicial determination of compensability. Id. The Baldwin Circuit Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel and later declined to reconsider that order. Id.
The court grants mandamus relief, relying on Ex parte Publix Super Markets, Inc., 963 So. 2d 654 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007), which holds that a trial court may not compel an employer to provide medical treatment based only on an employee’s allegation of a work-related injury before compensability has been determined. Id. at *2. The court explains that, absent a proper judgment on the pleadings, summary-judgment procedure, or evidentiary hearing establishing the threshold fact of a compensable work-related injury, the trial court cannot require an employer to provide disputed medical treatment. Id.
The court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that Waterville was required to honor the authorized treating physician’s referral. Id. The court distinguishes Ex parte City of Prattville,56 So. 3d 684 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), explaining that the employer in that case had waived its compensability defense, while Waterville continued to insist on its right to have compensability resolved through due process. Id.
The court also rejects Plaintiff’s estoppel argument. Id. at *3. The court explains that Waterville’s voluntary payment of temporary-total-disability and medical benefits did not constitute an admission of liability under Ala. R. Evid. 409 or Ala. Code § 25-5-56. Id. Because Waterville did not admit compensability and no evidentiary basis supported the order compelling treatment, the court holds that the circuit court exceeded its discretion and directs the circuit court to vacate its order compelling the second-opinion consultation. Id.