1. Mission and audience
The publication’s mission is to make serious Alabama work-injury issues easier to identify and understand. Articles should be useful to injured workers without oversimplifying disputes that require individual legal analysis.
2. Source standards
Primary authority is preferred whenever practical: Alabama statutes, court opinions, administrative rules, official forms, agency materials, and public records. Secondary sources may provide context but should not replace available primary authority. Links should point to the original government, court, or publisher source when available.
3. Author and legal review
Bylined material identifies the responsible author. Publication-focused biographies explain what each author writes about and link separately to full professional profiles. Legal material should be reviewed for Alabama relevance, plain-language accuracy, source support, and the difference between general information and advice about a particular case.
4. Corrections and updates
Material errors should be corrected promptly after they are identified. A correction that changes the substance of an article should be noted in the issue archive or on the page. Minor spelling, punctuation, broken-link, and formatting repairs may be made without a new issue entry.
5. Volumes and issues
Each substantive publication update receives a sequential issue number. The first public editorial record is Volume 1, Issue 1. Issue numbers advance within a volume; a new volume begins when the editor designates a new annual or major editorial cycle. The issue archive records the scope of each substantive update.
6. Publisher and conflicts
The Alabama Work Injury Report is published by Powell & Denny, P.C., a law firm that represents injured workers. It is not an independent newsroom, government agency, court, or neutral legal service. Pages should disclose advertising status and avoid implying guaranteed results or superiority over other lawyers.
7. AI-assisted tools and drafting
AI may assist with organization, question interfaces, or drafting, but it should not be treated as legal authority. Source-grounded tools should identify their limits, avoid collecting unnecessary private information, and direct readers to official sources. Substantive legal publication remains subject to human editorial responsibility.
8. Privacy and submissions
Readers should not submit confidential claim details through public tools. Proposed articles and source suggestions may be considered under the submission rules. Publication decisions remain discretionary.