Alabama: Court Approves Award for Erectile Dysfunction Medication in Spite of Rule Limiting Such Awards

An Alabama appellate court affirmed an award for a prescription medication in the form of a “time release” medication for erectile dysfunction that an employee contended was associated with his use of prescription narcotics to manage pain in spite of a state Department of Labor rule [Rule 480–5–5-.15(15), Ala. Admin. Code] that generally limited coverage to treat “organic erectile dysfunction” resulting from “a definitive organic disorder.” The employer contended that the rule, which also generally denied coverage for dysfunction related to psychological or psychiatric reasons did not provide for benefits to the employee since he did not suffer from “organic impotence.” The appellate court disagreed with the employer, noting that Ala. Code § 25–5–77(a) made the employer responsible for reasonably necessary medical treatment of conditions that were caused by the accident arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment. That was so, notwithstanding the blanket prohibition in Rule 480–5–5-.15(15) on treating erectile dysfunction that was not considered to be an “organic.” The court observed that other than its reliance on the rule, the employer did not contend that the specific treatment prescribed to the employee was not reasonably necessary to treat a medical condition resulting from the accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis

See Ex parte Ward Int’l, 2015 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 205 (Sept. 4, 2015) 

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.03

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.