Alabama Workers' Comp Blawg

  • 07
  • Sep
  • 2026

Alabama Court Confirms PTD is not an Exception to the Workers’ Compensation Schedule

 

In a recent decision, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reaffirmed an important limitation on workers’ compensation benefits for scheduled-member injuries: an employee cannot avoid the statutory schedule simply by proving that the injury has resulted in substantial vocational disability.

 

In Harris v. Lineage Logistics, 2026 WL 2207386 (Ala. Civ. App. July 31, 2026), Roderick Harris sustained severe cold exposure at work that resulted in the partial amputation of his right index and middle fingers and his left index finger. The trial court found that Harris was permanently and totally disabled but nevertheless limited his compensation to the benefits provided under Alabama’s schedule for injuries to the fingers.

 

Harris appealed, arguing that because he was permanently and totally disabled, he should receive benefits based on his vocational disability rather than being restricted to the scheduled-member benefits under Ala. Code § 25-5-57(a)(3).

 

In rejecting Harris’ position, the Court of Civil Appeals emphasized that it was bound by Alabama Supreme Court precedent. Under Leach Manufacturing Co. v. Puckett and Ex parte Drummond Co., when an injury is confined to a scheduled member and does not extend to or interfere with other parts of the body, the statutory schedule controls compensation.

 

Importantly, the schedule applies without consideration of vocational disability when the injury does not extend beyond the scheduled member. As Puckett explained, the scheduled amount is intended to fully compensate the employee for the injury, including any resulting loss of earning capacity or inability to obtain employment.

 

The court also relied on Advantage Sales of Alabama, Inc. v. Clemons, which had previously rejected essentially the same argument Harris presented.

 

One particularly interesting aspect of Harris is how narrowly the issue was presented to the appellate court.

 

Although Harris's history included allegations of a cervical-spine injury, the Court noted that he ultimately pursued only the argument that his permanent total disability should permit him to recover outside the schedule. The appellate court therefore did not have before it an argument that the finger injuries extended to and interfered with other parts of the body, nor did Harris rely on the recognized pain exception.

 

About the Author:

 

This article was prepared by Mike Fish, an attorney with Fish Nelson & Holden, LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers and funds, and third-party administrators in all matters related to workers’ compensation. Fish Nelson & Holden is a member of the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. If you have any questions about this article or Alabama workers’ compensation in general, please contact Fish by e-mailing him at mfish@fishnelson.com or by calling him directly at 205-332-1448.

Follow and connect with us!

Categories