Legal Opinion · Dissent

Skilstaf, Inc. v. Williams

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided August 27, 2004No. 1020034Published

1DissentLyons, Justice

Section 25 — 5—11(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:

“For purposes of this amendatory act, the employer shall be entitled to subro-gation for medical and vocational benefits expended by the employer on behalf of the employee; however, if a judgment in an action brought pursuant to this section is uncollectible in part, the employer’s entitlement to subrogation for such medical and vocational benefits shall be in proportion to the ratio the amount of the judgment collected bears to the total amount of the judgment.”

(Emphasis added.)

While I voted with the majority in Ex parte BE & K…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Langnes v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Smith v. Equifax Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1988
  3. Ex Parte RyalsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2000
  4. McClain v. Birmingham Coca-Cola BottlingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991
  5. Ivey v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API