Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., the defendant in a declaratory-judgment action filed by Infirmary Health System, Inc. (IHS) and South Baldwin Regional Medical Center appealed to the Supreme Court from one aspect of a final judgment entered by a circuit court in favor of IHS and South Baldwin. IHS and South Baldwin cross-appealed from another aspect of the trial court's judgment held in favor of Sacred Heart. The Supreme Court transferred the appeal and cross-appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, and that court reversed the judgment of the trial court. Sacred Heart owns "Sacred Heart Medical Group" (SHMG) which consists of 143 multi-specialty physicians who practice in the area served by Sacred Heart. All SHMG physicians have uniform employment contracts with SHMG. Six of those physicians practice in southern Baldwin County. When the Baldwin County practice saw an increase in patients, Sacred Heart sought to expand existing leased space for additional physicians and facilities. The contested issue between the parties was whether the portion of the medical-building project Sacred Heart leased for its Baldwin County physicians to use was subject to Sacred Heart's first obtaining a "Certificate of Need" to expand its facilities from the State Health Planning and Development Agency (SHPDA). Finding that the trial did not engage in a five-part inquiry (as expressed in 22-21-260(6) Ala. Code 1975) on whether the proposed expanded practice required a CON in order to proceed, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Infirmary Health System v. Sacred Heart Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

Following a 1987 conviction for first-degree theft of property and his unsuccessful direct appeal of that conviction, Defendant Joseph Pate filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim P. petition (Rule 32) for relief. The circuit court summarily denied his petition. Defendant filed a second Rule 32 petition in 2010. In the petition, he asserted that: his sentence was illegal because the trial court improperly used two of his prior controlled-substance convictions as sentence enhancements; and, that the State failed to provide notice that it intended to proceed under the Habitual Felony Offender Act for sentence enhancement. The State moved to dismiss, asserting that the petition was barred because those claims could have been, but were not, raised at trial, and because those claims could have been, but were not, raised on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court's denial of Defendant's Rule 32 petition without an opinion. On appeal, Defendant contended that in not addressing the denial of his motion for sentence reconsideration the Court of Criminal Appeals incorrectly applied the law to the facts of his case. Because the record supported Defendant's claim that his request for sentence modification was made in a separate motion, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that the claim was not proper for appellate review. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment to the extent it held that the trial court's ruling on Defendant's request for sentence reconsideration was not properly before it, and remanded the case for the Court of Criminal Appeals to review the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion for sentence modification. View "Pate v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Defendant Ralph Burnell petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Bibb Circuit Court to vacate its 2011 order that denied his motion to dismiss claims Plaintiff Christi Burry Kelley filed against him. In 2007 while she was an inmate at the Bibb County jail, Plaintiff slipped in the shower and was injured. Petitioner was the warden of the jail at the time. Plaintiff sued the warden, the jail, the sheriff's department, and the sheriff, alleging negligence and wantonness. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims against them under state immunity. The trial court dismissed as to the County, the jail and the sheriff's department and sheriff, but denied the motion as to Defendant. Defendant argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that he was entitled to State immunity because he was being sued for money damages for actions that arose out of his performance of his duties as a deputy sheriff. Finding that Defendant established a clear legal right to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against him, the Supreme Court issued the writ. View "Kelley v. Burnell" on Justia Law

Main & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Southern Springs Healthcare Facility, filed an action in the Bullock Circuit Court, on behalf of itself and a putative class of Alabama nursing homes, against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (BCBS), asserting claims of breach of contract, intentional interference with business relations, negligence and/or wantonness, and unjust enrichment and seeking injunctive relief. BCBS removed the case to the the federal court, arguing among other things, that Southern Springs' claims arose under the Medicare Act and that the Medicare Act, as amended by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the MMA) completely preempted Southern Springs' state-law claims. Southern Springs moved the federal court to remand the case to the circuit court, arguing that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over its claims. The federal court granted the motion and remanded the case to the Bullock Circuit Court. After remand, BCBS moved the circuit court for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Southern Springs had not exhausted its administrative remedies and that the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The circuit court denied BCBS's motion, and BCBS petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss Southern Springs' claims. Upon review, the Court concluded that Southern Springs' claims were inextricably intertwined with claims for coverage and benefits under the Medicare Act and that they were subject to the Act's mandatory administrative procedures and limited judicial review. Southern Springs did not exhaust its administrative remedies, and the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over its claims. Therefore, the Court granted BCBS's petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to dismiss the claims against BCBS. View "Main & Associates, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama" on Justia Law

Husband and wife Emmett and Debra Jackson appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in their action against the bank and trustee. The Jacksons challenged a foreclosure sale of their property. The Jacksons refinanced an existing home loan; in so doing, they gave a mortgage on the property which was subsequently assigned to Wells Fargo. Although the mortgage was, in turn, assigned to the trustee, the bank continued to function as the "servicer" of the loan. By 2007, the Jacksons were in arrears on their mortgage payments. While the Jacksons and the bank were engaged in negotiations for forbearance, the Jacksons did not make certain scheduled payments. During the negotiations, a debt-collection representative of the trustee sent the Jacksons a "NOTICE OF ACCELERATION OF PROMISSORY NOTE AND MORTGAGE." The house was put up for sale, and a foreclosure deed was issued to a third party. The Jacksons then sued the bank, the trustee, and the purchaser of the property alleging negligent or wanton foreclosure and breach of contract. The bank and trustee moved for summary judgment, contending that the Jacksons lacked any basis from which to contest the foreclosure sale. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Jacksons presented no basis on which to reverse the summary judgment as to their claim of negligent or wanton foreclosure, however, the Court agreed that the acceleration letter was fundamentally flawed. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Amy Hamilton, individually and on behalf of her stillborn son, sued Dr. John Blakely Isbell, Dr. Steven Coulter, Dr. Warren Scott, and the Isbell Medical Group (IMG), as well as several fictitiously named defendants, claiming that their negligent and wanton acts had wrongfully caused the death of her son and also caused her to suffer emotional distress. The DeKalb Circuit Court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that a wrongful-death action could not be maintained for the death of an unborn child who died before he was viable. The trial court also held that Hamilton was not in the "zone of danger" and, thus, could not recover damages for emotional distress. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed in part, and affirmed in part. The Court found that in applying "Mack v. Carmack," ([Ms. 1091040, Sept. 9, 2011] _So. 3d_ (Ala. 2011)), the Court concluded that summary judgment, insofar as it held that damages for the wrongful death of a previable unborn child were not recoverable "must be reversed" for reconsideration of the defendants' summary-judgment motions. View "Hamilton v. Scott" on Justia Law

AltaPointe Health Systems, Inc. (AHS), appealed a Mobile Probate Court's order finding it in contempt of its "Order of Outpatient Commitment" for Donald Bernoudy based on AHS's failure to comply with 22-52-10.3(e), Ala. Code 1975. Bernoudy refused treatment and was appointed a guardian ad litem to appear for several status hearings before the probate court, but the sheriff was unable to find him. When it did, Bernoudy was taken into custody, where subsequently he was deemed a "real and present threat of substantial harm" to himself and the public. At a show cause hearing, the court found that Bernoudy was "a long time mental health consumer, who [was] well known to the Court and should [have been] well known to AHS" and that AHS failed on multiple occasions to comply with its orders with regard to Bernoudy's commitment orders. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that while "[t]he probate court's frustration in this case [was] understandable. . . it [was] clear that the probate court did not find AHS in contempt because it had not complied with a specific provision of its . . . outpatient commitment order. Rather, the probate court found AHS in contempt because it had not complied with the reporting provisions set forth in 22-53-10.3(e). . . a violation of a statute is not a proper ground for a finding of contempt." Accordingly, the Court dismissed this appeal with instructions that the probate court set aside its order finding AHS in contempt. View "AltaPointe Health Systems, Inc. v. Davis" on Justia Law

In 2009, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs sued Frank S. Smith, Jr. in the Jefferson Circuit Court, stating a claim of ejectment and sought possession of Mr. Smith's house in Bessemer. The mortgage to Mr. Smith's home was assigned to the Secretary, and the Secretary had sold the house at a foreclosure sale in 2007. The auctioneer who sold the house executed an auctioneer's deed conveying the house to the Secretary. The Secretary demanded that Mr. Smith vacate the house, but Mr. Smith failed to leave. The trial court granted summary judgment, asserting as a matter of law he was entitled to possession of the house. Mr. Smith opposed the summary-judgment motion by filing a pleading titled 'Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.' In his response, Mr. Smith argued, among other things, that the Secretary had failed to establish that he was entitled to possession of the house because, Frank said, the affidavit filed with the Secretary's motion did not comply with Rule 56(e), Ala. R. Civ. P. Mr. Smith appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals which reversed the summary judgment and remanded the action for further proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Mr. Smith should have moved to strike the offending affidavit in the Secretary's summary judgment motion in his response: "an objection to the inadmissible evidence alone is not sufficient." The Court vacated the appellate court's decision and affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Smith, Jr. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

T.J. sought a writ of mandamus to order the Montgomery Juvenile Court to adjudicate T.J. as the presumed father of S.W. (the child) and to vacate the juvenile court's order authorizing genetic testing to establish the child's paternity. In 2009, T.J. filed a petition in the juvenile court seeking custody of the child. T.J. contended that in his custody petition he alleged that he was the biological father of the child and that the child had lived with him since the child was born. The mother filed a petition seeking custody of the child. According to the briefs filed with the Supreme Court, the mother named "J.H." as the father of the child. The mother filed a motion requesting genetic testing of T.J. and J.H. to establish paternity of the child. T.J. objected. That same day, T.J. filed a motion to reconsider and an affidavit of paternity with the juvenile court. The juvenile court found that, because T.J. was incarcerated at the time the child was conceived and the mother was five months' pregnant when T.J. was released from prison, it was "unlikely" that T.J. in good faith believed he was the biological father of the child. Based on this finding, the juvenile court concluded that T.J. could not be the child's presumed father and authorized the genetic testing. On December 29, 2010, T.J. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of Civil Appeals, asking that court to direct the juvenile court to adjudicate him, the presumed father of the child and to vacate the order authorizing genetic testing to determine the paternity of the child. The Court of Civil Appeals denied the petition on the ground that, because there was no record of the proceedings before the juvenile court, there was no way to know whether T.J. had presented sufficient evidence from which to determine that he had held the child out to the public as his natural child. Based on the briefs submitted to the Court, the evidence in that regard was disputed. Therefore, the Court could not conclude that there was sufficient evidence to hold that T.J. was the presumed father of the child. The Court remanded the case back to the juvenile court for further factfinding. View "In re: R.W. v. T.J." on Justia Law

The Alabama Insurance Guaranty Association (AIGA) sued the Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board of the City of Montgomery, seeking, among other things, to recover money it had paid on behalf of the Board on a workers' compensation claim filed by one of the Board's employees. AIGA and the Board each moved for a summary judgment. The circuit court granted the Board's motion and entered a judgment limiting AIGA's recovery to the payments it had made on the workers' compensation claim during the two years immediately preceding the filing of the action and denying AIGA's request for attorney fees. AIGA appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment, concluding that AIGA's claims were subject to a six-year statute of limitations and that, therefore, the circuit court had erred in limiting AIGA's recovery to payments made within two years of the filing of the action. The Court of Civil Appeals remanded the case for the circuit court to reassess the damages award and to consider further AIGA's claim for attorney fees. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine, as a matter of first impression, which statute of limitations -- the two-year or the six-year -- applied to AIGA's claims. Upon review, the Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment. View "Alabama Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Board of the City of Montgomery" on Justia Law