In Ex parte Michael Lancaster, Jr., Aaron Ashcraft, Sim Johnson and John Webb prevailed on a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Lancaster, Jr. (“the plaintiff”). At the trial court level, the plaintiff sought two panels of four to replace an orthopedic specialist and an ophthalmologist.  Defendant provided Plaintiff with an ophthalmology panel but denied the orthopedic panel, and the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. The trial court denied the Motion to Compel, based on Ex parte Brookwood Medical Center, Inc., which held that once an employee has exercised the right to a panel of four, there is no statutory right to additional panels.

The Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on June 24, 2025, and argued the holding of Brookwood did not control as it did not address the question of whether separate panels for separate specialties were permitted under the Act.  The Court of Civil Appeals denied the petition after briefing, on September 19, 2025.

In its decision, written by Judge Terry Moore, the Court reaffirmed its holding in Ex parte Brookwood Medical Center, Inc., finding that the issue of whether the Act permitted separate panels for separate medical specialties was addressed in that case.  The court further analyzed the language of § 25-5-77(a) and its legislative history, concluding that the statutory text does not support the employee’s request for a second panel of physicians.

The court noted that allowing more than one panel of four physicians would disrupt the balance established by the legislature, which intended to contain medical treatment costs and ensure efficient care. The 1985 amendment to § 25-5-77(a) limited the right to a single panel of four physicians, and the court emphasized that it could not amend the statute to provide for additional panels, as that was a job for the legislature.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the employee did not have a clear legal right to a second panel of four physicians and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Judge Hanson dissented, arguing that the case presented a novel issue because the employer had authorized two specialists for different injuries. He contended that when an injury required the assignment of multiple “initial treating physicians” in different specialties, the Act should be interpreted to authorize multiple panels of four. He would have granted the petition for the writ of mandamus. No other Judges joined the dissent. Plaintiff has sought a Writ of Certiorari with the Alabama Supreme Court, and that Petition is still under review.

We are pleased that the Plaintiff’s attempt to expand an employee’s panel of four rights was unsuccessful and are optimistic that Judge Moore’s reasoned opinion will not be reversed on Plaintiff’s petition.