We are committed to sharing decisions and providing legal updates that may be beneficial to you and your teams. Included below are summaries of cases recently released by Alabama Appellate Courts. Please reach out to any member of our
Appellate Practice
group
with any questions.
Warm regards,
Team
Huie
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Appellate Opinions Released
January 12, 2018
|
|
Resolving State-Agent Immunity Issue Is Prerequisite to Full Discovery
Gloria Austill and Mary Ella Etheridge v. John Krolikowski
William Marshall Etheridge (decedent) died under hospice care on December 9, 2012. Following his death, the Baldwin County District Attorney’s Office authorized an autopsy to be performed on the decedent. Dr. Krolikowski conducted the autopsy on the decedent, at which time the brain was saved and “fixed” in formalin. Mary Ella Etheridge (decedent’s widow) and Gloria Austill (decedent’s daughter) subsequently sued Dr. Krolikowski, alleging he “harvested the decedent’s entire brain without the family’s permission and preserved it in his office for his own use.” Dr. Krolikowski claimed State-agent immunity. The plaintiffs propounded discovery on Dr. Krolikowski, and the parties were unable to resolve a dispute whether the defendant was required to answer all discovery or only discovery relevant to the issue of State-agent immunity. Dr. Krolikowski claimed the issue of State-agent immunity must be resolved before full discovery is allowed, and filed a summary judgment motion on this basis. The plaintiffs did not oppose the summary judgment on the merits, but filed a motion to compel discovery asserting the discovery sought was crucial to “the issues” in the case. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion, and entered a summary judgment in favor of Dr. Krolikowski on the basis of State-agent immunity. Plaintiffs appealed.
The plaintiffs conceded in their filings that the autopsy itself was not at issue. Instead, the allegations in their complaint were based on what happened after the autopsy – the retention of the decedent’s brain without permission and without a compelling reason. However, the plaintiffs changed course, claiming that the specifics of the procedures Dr. Krolikowski used in performing the autopsy were “crucial” to the issue of whether he acted in accordance with the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences policies and procedures and ultimately whether he failed to discharge his duties in the manner required to be entitled to State-agent immunity. This Court disagreed, arguing that the specifics of all tests, procedures, and examinations performed on the decedent’s brain is not dispositive of whether Dr. Krolikowski acted within the scope of his discretionary authority and is instead related to the performance of the autopsy. As noted above, the plaintiffs conceded this was not at issue and the trial court concluded this was irrelevant to the issue of immunity. Therefore, because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the discovery requested was crucial to the issue of State-agent immunity, the trial court properly denied their motion to compel. Further, because the plaintiffs did not challenge the merits of the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Dr. Krolikowski, the summary judgment was affirmed.
|
|
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
|
|
Trial Court Required to Make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Workers’ Compensation Judgments
Regions Bank v. Kathleen Allen
Regions Bank appealed from a judgment that denied Regions’ motion for termination of medical benefits previously ordered to be paid pursuant to Alabama’s Workers’ Compensation Act. On August 6, 1998, the trial court entered a judgment approving a settlement of a workers’ compensation action filed by Allen against Regions, concluding Allen had sustained an on-the-job injury while working at Regions.
On May 8, 2017, Regions filed a motion requesting termination of its responsibility to pay medical benefits related to medical treatment Allen was seeking for her back. Regions argued that Allen’s treating physician had informed them that her current treatment was a result of the normal aging process and not related to her 1996 injury. On July 18, 2017, the trial court held a hearing on Regions’ motion and denied the motion. There was no transcript in the record on appeal, and also no indication that ore tenus testimony was presented at the hearing. Regions appealed, arguing Allen’s current medical treatment is unrelated to the 1996 injury and that Allen failed to establish a compensable injury.
This court found the trial court was in violation of Alabama’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Under § 25-5-88, the trial court is required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in workers’ compensation judgments. Therefore, because the trial court’s judgment contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law, this court reversed and remanded for the trial court to comply with § 25-5-88 of the Alabama Code.
|
|
"The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. Never let your correspondence fall behind." ~Abraham Lincoln
|
|
HUIE APPELLATE PRACTICE GROUP
|
|
No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
