State News : Alabama

On October 24, 2025, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals released its opinion in the matter styled MMR Constructors, Inc. v. Taylor.  The employee put forth evidence at trial suggesting that he sustained severe injuries after losing consciousness and crashing a buggy at a construction site.  The employer argued that employee’s preexisting medical conditions, such as bronchitis and a heart condition, were solely responsible for the accident.  However, the trial court determined that workplace conditions, including operating an unenclosed buggy in a hazardous construction zone, increased the risk of injury and contributed to the severity of the accident.  The court applied the "increased-risk test," concluding that employee’s employment conditions heightened the risk of injury compared to the general public.

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that workplace conditions need only contribute to the risk or severity of an injury for it to be compensable under Alabama’s Workers’ Compensation Act.  The majority opinion emphasized that the "increased-risk test" was appropriately applied and that employment conditions do not need to be the sole cause of an injury, as long as they contribute to the risk or severity of the accident.

In his well-reasoned dissenting opinion, Judge Bowden stated that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard to determine whether the employee’s injuries were compensable.  He emphasized that the "increased-risk test" is not applicable to all workplace accidents.  Instead, the proper standard for accidental injuries is the "set-in-motion" test, which requires a definite causal connection between employment and the injury.  Bowden contended that the trial court failed to determine whether the employee’s injuries were caused by an accident or were nonaccidental in nature, which is crucial for applying the correct legal standard.

Even if the increased-risk test were applicable, Bowden noted that the trial court misstated and misapplied it.  The court incorrectly used a "but-for" causation standard, which was previously held to be the incorrect standard by the Alabama Supreme Court.  According to Bowden, the increased-risk test requires a claimant to prove that their employment exposed them to a danger or risk materially greater than what the general public faces in everyday life and not merely that the employment was a contributing factor.

Bowden highlighted that the trial court did not clearly determine the cause of employee’s coughing spell, which led to his loss of consciousness and subsequent accident.  Without a clear finding on whether the injuries were accidental or nonaccidental, the application of the increased-risk test was premature and potentially incorrect.

My Two Cents:

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Bowden indicated that Alabama caselaw likely supported the trial court’s conclusion that the employee's injuries were compensable regardless of which causation test was applied.  While that may be the case (certainly not conceding that point), caselaw would also support a defense verdict had the trial court applied the set-in-motion test and determined that the employee’s idiopathic condition set the chain of events leading to the accident in motion.  While the employee was at increased risk of injury because he was behind the wheel of a moving vehicle at the time of the idiopathic event, that, alone, should not be enough to satisfy the increased risk standard according to the Street Risk Doctrine which also requires evidence that the employee’s job requires him/her to continually be on the streets.