Taking the higher road: The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reaffirms an employer's right to preserve its right to deny benefits even though it has paid benefits.
Case Summary and Analysis
Ex parte Waterville USA, Inc. stems from a workers’ compensation case in Baldwin County between an employee, Isabell Altamira, and her employer, Waterville USA, Inc. Ms. Altamira alleged that she suffered a workplace accident resulting in injuries to her head, left shoulder, and back.
In its Answer, Waterville denied that the injury was compensable. Specifically, the employer denied liability for medical benefits, disputed that the employee had suffered any permanent injury as a result of the accident, and asserted that any alleged disability was not proximately caused by the incident. Nevertheless, Waterville provided Ms. Altamira with medical benefits during the course of the claim.
During litigation, in February 2026, Ms. Altamira filed a motion to compel medical treatment after her authorized treating physician referred her to another physician for a “second opinion consultation.” Waterville objected, arguing that although it had previously provided medical treatment, it had done so “without an admission of liability.” As such, the employer contended it could not be compelled to provide additional treatment without a Publix hearing to determine compensability.
Despite this argument, the trial court granted Ms. Altamira’s motion to compel. Waterville filed a motion to reconsider, which the court denied. Following that denial, Waterville petitioned for a writ of mandamus with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
In its opinion, the appellate court began its analysis with an overview of the Publix decision, which held that a trial court is not authorized to compel an employer to provide medical or surgical treatment without first conducting a trial on the merits where evidence is presented and considered.
The central issue in this case was whether Waterville’s voluntary provision of medical benefits estopped it from later denying compensability. The Court held that an employer’s payment of temporary total disability benefits and medical benefits does not prevent it from subsequently contesting compensability.
Accordingly, the Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion in compelling Waterville to provide additional treatment. The order was vacated.
Employer Takeaway
Employers can provide medical and indemnity benefits early in a claim without waiving the right to dispute compensability later. However, this decision reinforces the importance of clearly documenting that such benefits are provided without an admission of liability. When compensability is disputed, employers should be prepared to request a Publix hearing before being compelled to authorize additional treatment.
Matt Williams, Partner - Blog
