Newsome v. Gunnels (Ala. 2012) (Appellant Brief)

Newsome v. Gunnels (Ala. 2012) (Appellant Brief)

FILED
AUG
3 0 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA,
CASE NO. 1111202
REGINA NEWSOME a n d
BURTON NEWSOME,
APPELLANTS,
V.
DREW JEFFREY GUNNELLS,
APPELLEE.
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY,
ALABAMA
RE:
CV-2009-901168
NEWSOME V . GUNNELLS
APPELLANTS' B R I E F
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS
BURTON NEWSOME (NEW047)
NEWSOME LAW, L L C
P.O. BOX 382753 (35238)
194 NARROWS DRIVE
SUITE 103
BIRMINGHAM, A L 35242
PHONE: (205) 747-1972
FAX:
(205) 7 4 7 - 1 9 7 1
EMAIL: h u r t s n e w s o m e l a w l l c . c o m
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
O r a l argument i s n o t r e q u e s t e d .
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S t a t e m e n t R e g a r d i n g O r a l Argument
Table of Contents
i i
i
i
i
Statement o f J u r i s d i c t i o n
v
Table of A u t h o r i t i e s
vi
S t a t e m e n t o f t h e Case
1
Statement o f t h e I s s u e s
2
Statement o f t h e F a c t s
3
Standard o f Review
5
Summary o f t h e Argument
6
Argument
8
I
B
o t h P l a i n t i f f s s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o p u r s u e t h e i r
I n t e n t i o n a l I n f l i c t i o n o f Emotion D i s t r e s s claims
a g a i n s t t h e D e f e n d a n t b e c a u s e t h e AMLA d o e s n o t a p p l y
t o R e g i n a Newsome a n d t h i s f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n f i t s
w i t h i n t h e type t o which t h i s Court has p r e v i o u s l y
applied outrage claims.
8
A
P
l a i n t i f f R e g i n a Newsome's c l a i m d o e s n o t f a l l
u n d e r t h e AMLA b e c a u s e t h e i n j u r y upon w h i c h t h e
c l a i m i s based i s not a "medical i n j u r y " caused
d u r i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n o f m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s t o h e r as
a "patient."
9
B
T
he P l a i n t i f f s were e n t i t l e d t o b r i n g t h e i r
intentional i n f l i c t i o n of emotional distress
c l a i m s because, as the judge h e l d i n h e r o r i g i n a l
summary j u d g m e n t o r d e r , t h e s e f a c t s f a l l s q u a r e l y
iii
among t h e t y p e s o f c l a i m s
applied that claim
t o which t h i s
Court has
14
11
T
he t r i a l c o u r t a l s o made two p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r s i n
p r e v e n t i n g P l a i n t i f f B u r t o n Newsome f r o m p u r s u i n g
c e r t a i n d i s c o v e r y i n support o f h i s c l a i m and i n
dismissing h i s claim f o r f a i l u r e t o support i t against
an a f f i d a v i t t h a t was i m p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . . . 16
A
T
he t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by d e n y i n g t h e
P l a i n t i f f ' s deposition of the neonatologist, lacking
any showing t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f had n o t f o l l o w e d t h e
c o r r e c t p r o c e d u r e o r t h a t j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e d .
17
B
T
he D e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l
c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y r e l i e d was n o t p r o p e r l y
c o n s i d e r e d upon t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed M o t i o n
because t h e t r i a l c o u r t had p r e v i o u s l y excluded i t
from e v i d e n c e and, d e s p i t e t h e j u d g e ' s erroneous
a l l u s i o n t h e r e t o , the Defendant never resubmitted
it.
21
Conclusion
Certificate
23
of Service
25
IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This
Court has a p p e l l a t e
12-2-7 b e c a u s e
jurisdiction
t h e amount i n v o l v e d ,
and c o s t s , e x c e e d s
u n d e r A l a . Code §
exclusive of interest
t h e S50,000 l i m i t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n
e x c l u s i v e t o t h e Alabama Court o f C i v i l
Appeals under A l a .
Code § 12-3-10.
This
Court has a p p e l l a t e
12-22-2 b e c a u s e
the t r i a l
judgment d i s m i s s i n g
Plaintiffs
filed
jurisdiction
judge has e n t e r e d a f i n a l
a l l remaining claims,
a Notice
u n d e r A l a . Code §
o f Appeal w i t h
and the
that court
t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 4, A l a . R. A p p . P.
V
within
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Alabama Supreme Court Cases
Bass V. S o u t h t r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y ,
( A l a . 1989)
538 So. 2d 794
Ex p a r t e A d d i c t i o n & M e n t a l H e a l t h S e r v i c e s ,
2d 533 ( A l a . 2006)
5
I n c . , 948 So.
11
George H. L a n i e r Mem'l Hosp. v . A n d r e w s , 901 So. 2d 714
( A l a . 2004)
10
H a m i l t o n v. S c o t t , No. 1100192, 2012 WL 1760204
18, 2012)
13
L i t t l e V. Robinson,
( A l a . May
72 So. 3d 1168, 1173 ( A l a . 2011]
McClendon v. M o u n t a i n
2d 957 ( A l a . 1992)
Top I n d o o r F l e a M a r k e t ,
14
I n c . , 601 So.
5
S a n j a y , I n c . v. Duncan C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., 445 So. 2 d 876
( A l a . 1984)
T a y l o r v. S m i t h ,
5
892 So. 2 d 887 ( A l a . 2004)
10
Thomasson v. D i e t h e l m , 457 So. 2 d 397, 399 ( A l a . 1984} 10,11
Wolfe V. I s b e l l ,
280 So.2d 758 ( A l a . 1973)
Alabcuoa C i r c u i t Court Cases
Wadley v . S t . V i n c e n t ' s Hosp., No. CV-2004-1257-RSV,
WL 2061785 ( A l a . C i r . C t . J u l y 20, 2006)
Alabama
A l a . R.
A l a . R.
A l a . R.
Rules
C i v . P. 26
C i v . P. 30
C i v . P. 56
13
2006
15
19,20
18
5
Alabama S t a t u t e s
A l a . Code § 6-5-484
A l a . Code § 6-5-548
10
10
vi
STATEMEMT OF THE CASE
T h i s i s an a p p e a l
Court's
f i n a l orders
Plaintiffs,
on A p r i l
i n favor of the Defendant.
Circuit
The
a n d R e g i n a Newsome, i n i t i a t e d t h e s u i t
3, 2009, s e e k i n g damages f o r t h e D e f e n d a n t
Gunnells'
death
Burton
from the J e f f e r s o n County
outrageous conduct surrounding
of the P l a i n t i f f s ' twin
Plaintiff
t h e b i r t h and
babies.
R e g i n a Newsome's c l a i m was
d i s m i s s e d on summary j udgment f o r f a i l u r e
testimony
pursuant
L i a b i l i t y Act.
erroneously
P l a i n t i f f Burton
to provide
expert
Medical
Newsome's c l a i m was
forfailure
t o support
response t o the Defendant's i m p r o p e r l y
affidavit.
erroneously
t o t h e i n a p p l i c a b l e Alabama
dismissed
Jeffrey
The P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l
h i s claim i n
considered
to this
Court,
seeking to
e s t a b l i s h the v a l i d i t y of t h e i r
claims, the i n a p p l i c a b i l i t y
o f t h e AMLA, a n d t h e p r o c e d u r a l
e r r o r s committed by t h e
trial
court.
1
STATEMENT OF THE
1. W h e t h e r P l a i n t i f f
Infliction
ISSUES
R e g i n a Newsome's I n t e n t i o n a l
o f E m o t i o n a l D i s t r e s s c l a i m f a l l s under
the Alabama M e d i c a l
L i a b i l i t y A c t where t h e conduct
made t h e b a s i s o f t h e c l a i m was f o r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
surrounding
the death of her c h i l d r e n f o l l o w i n g
their
birth.
2. W h e t h e r t h e f a c t s s u p p o r t i n g
the P l a i n t i f f s '
claims
are o f t h e type found t o support a c l a i m f o r
Intentional
Infliction
3. W h e t h e r t h e t r i a l
order
the
preventing
of Emotional
court's
Plaintiff
issuance
Distress/Outrage.
of a protective
B u r t o n Newsome f r o m
deposition of a neonatologist
taking
at the b i r t h
h o s p i t a l was a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n where t h e r e
no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f
had n o t f o l l o w e d t h e
correct procedures or that j u s t i c e
4. W h e t h e r t h e t r i a l
court's
was
so r e q u i r e d .
consideration
Defendant's Supplemental A f f i d a v i t
of the
on h i s Renewed
M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment was i m p r o p e r b a s e d on i t s
p r i o r e x c l u s i o n by t h e c o u r t
failure
to properly
and t h e Defendant's
resubmit the a f f i d a v i t .
2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Expecting twin babies, the P l a i n t i f f s ,
B u r t o n and
R e g i n a Newsome, c h o s e S t . V i n c e n t ' s H o s p i t a l
delivery,
f o r the
a n d t h e OB/GYN p r a c t i c e , w i t h w h i c h
Defendant
J e f f r e y G u n n e l l s i s a s s o c i a t e d , a s R e g i n a Newsome's d o c t o r .
(C. a t 27.)
( C o - P l a i n t i f f B u r t o n Newsome was n e v e r a
p a t i e n t o f t h e OB/GYN P r a c t i c e a n d / o r
Dr. Gunnels and
t h e r e f o r e t h e AMLA h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n t o h i m
whatsoever.)Before the b i r t h ,
however, t h e i n d i v i d u a l
d o c t o r , whom t h e p a r e n t s h a d c h o s e n ,
s u f f e r e d a death i n
t h e f a m i l y , a n d t h e y were r e - a s s i g n e d t o t h e D e f e n d a n t . (C.
a t 27.)
R e g i n a Newsome i s f r o m U z b e k i s t a n a n d h a s a s t r o n g
accent.
(C. a t 27, 4 1 2 ) . Upon m e e t i n g h e r , t h e D e f e n d a n t
a b r u p t l y a s k e d h e r what h e r r e l i g i o n was. (C. a t 27, 412.)
Although a p r a c t i c i n g C h r i s t i a n ,
her f i r s t
r e s p o n s e was
t h a t she i s " h a l f - M u s l i m , " e t h n i c a l l y - s p e a k i n g .
415.)
The D e f e n d a n t ' s
he w o u l d n o t t r e a t h e r .
immediate
(C.
at
r e s p o n s e was n e g a t i v e , and
(C. a t 27, 412.)
She was a s s i g n e d
t o a t h i r d d o c t o r w i t h i n t h e p r a c t i c e who was w i l l i n g t o
treat her.
(C. a t 27.)
3
Not
l o n g a f t e r w a r d , when s h e was b e t w e e n 22 a n d 2 3
weeks p r e g n a n t ,
and,
M r s . Newsome b e g a n t o l e a k a m n i o t i c
a l t h o u g h h e r r e g u l a r d o c t o r t o l d h e r t h i s was
t h r e e days l a t e r ,
s h e was r u s h e d
fluid,
normal,
to the St. Vincent's
emergency room--where t h e D e f e n d a n t was t h e d o c t o r on c a l l .
[C. a t 27, 413, 423.)
The
Defendant t o l d t h e parents
that t h e i r babies
dead a n d t h a t n o t h i n g c o u l d be done.
Mrs.
Newsome's r e q u e s t ,
doctor
(C. a t 28.)
he r e f u s e d t o c a l l
were
Despite
i n the f i r s t
(who h a d s i n c e r e t u r n e d t o p r a c t i c e a f t e r h i s f a m i l y
tragedy).
(C. a t 28.)
A f t e r f o u r hours o f l a b o r , i n which
t h e D e f e n d a n t t r e a t e d M r s . Newsome d i s r e s p e c t f u l l y a n d
without
regard
f o r the d i r e nature
b a b i e s were b o r n
alive.
of the events, the
(C. a t 28, 423-24.)
D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y were c l e a r l y a l i v e ,
and
responding,
any m e d i c a l
crying
t h e Defendant f a i l e d o r r e f u s e d t o p r o v i d e
care t o the twin babies.
Plaintiff
Newsome h a d b e g g e d D r . G u n n e l s t o c a l l
Regina
i n the
N e o n a t o l o g i s t s p r i o r t o g i v i n g b i r t h t o t r y and save t h e
babies.
but,
at
(C. a t 28, 424.)
instead, l e f t
28, 424.)
The b a b i e s were n e v e r c l e a n e d up
to d i e before
For over
their parents'
e y e s . (C.
f o u r h o u r s more, t h e b a b i e s
4
cried,
w i t h no a s s i s t a n c e f r o m t h e D e f e n d a n t , d y i n g
room w i t h t h e i r d i s t r a u g h t and b e w i l d e r e d
28,
there
i n the
parents.
{C. a t
429.}
STAMDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews
t h e same s t a n d a r d
w h e t h e r summary
summary
the grant
as t h a t o f the t r i a l
genuine i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t ,
56{c);
876,
878
A motion f o r
o n l y where t h e r e a r e no
and t h e moving p a r t y i s
t o j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w .
Sanjay,
judgment u s i n g
court i n determining
j udgment i s a p p r o p r i a t e .
j u d g m e n t may be g r a n t e d
entitled
o f summary
A l a . R. C i v . P.
I n c . v. Duncan C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., 445 So. 2d
{ A l a . 1984).
A l l reasonable
inferences
from the
e v i d e n c e a r e t o be v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o
t h e non-movant.
Id.
The b u r d e n i s i n i t i a l l y
on t h e m o v i n g
p a r t y t o make a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e
material
to
fact i n dispute,
and t h a t t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d
judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w .
M c C l e n d o n v . M o u n t a i n Top
I n d o o r F l e a M a r k e t , I n c . , 601 So. 2d 957
burden then s h i f t s
i s no
( A l a . 1992).
t o t h e non-movant t o d e m o n s t r a t e
The
that
there i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence to create a genuine issue of
material
fact.
B a s s v. S o u t h t r u s t
538 So. 2d 794, 797-98
( A l a . 1989).
5
Bank o f B a l d w i n
County,
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The A l a b a m a M e d i c a l L i a b i l i t y A c t d o e s n o t a p p l y t o
Plaintiff
R e g i n a Newsome's c l a i m
for Intentional
of Emotional D i s t r e s s because her c l a i m
the Defendant's
i s based,
duty t o her as h i s p a t i e n t
medical i n j u r y caused
t o h e r b y him,
d u t y t o h e r n o t t o commit o u t r a g e o u s
Infliction
n o t on
o r on any
but on h i s s e p a r a t e
acts
inflicting
e x t r e m e e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s on h e r i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f h e r
dying babies.
B e c a u s e t h e AMLA d o e s n o t a p p l y t o h e r c l a i m ,
her husband, has a v a l i d o u t r a g e c l a i m .
Alabama l a w has
conduct
t r a d i t i o n a l l y encompassed
under
outrageous
The D e f e n d a n t ' s
i n r e f u s i n g t o t r e a t the P l a i n t i f f s '
conduct
newborn b a b i e s , s i m p l y
them t o d i e i n f r o n t o f t h e i r p a r e n t s ' e y e s , a l l
b a s e d on h i s d i s l i k e
supposed
This claim
like
i n v o l v i n g the b o d i e s o f the dead, i n d i c a t i n g the
meaning s o c i e t y a t t a c h e s t o d e a t h .
allowing
she,
religion,
f o r the mother's e t h n i c i t y and
i s j u s t the type o f outrageous
conduct
t h i s C o u r t has
found t o g i v e r i s e
the P l a i n t i f f s
s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o p r e s e n t t h e i r c l a i m s t o
a jury.
6
t o an outrage c l a i m , and
Furthermore,
the t r i a l
procedural errors,
court committed m u l t i p l e
improperly granting a protective
order
p r e v e n t i n g P l a i n t i f f B u r t o n Newsome f r o m c o n d u c t i n g a
d e p o s i t i o n and e r r o n e o u s l y g r a n t i n g summary j udgment i n
f a v o r o f D e f e n d a n t b a s e d on t h e i m p r o p e r
an a f f i d a v i t p r e v i o u s l y e x c l u d e d .
consideration of
The t r i a l
court
granted
the w i t n e s s ' s p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t normal
deposition procedures
a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r known e m p l o y e e s o f
a c o r p o r a t i o n u n d e r A l a . R. C i v . P. 30, t h e t e s t i m o n y
s o u g h t was r e l e v a n t u n d e r A l a . R. C i v . P. 26, t h e w i t n e s s
w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n b u r d e n e d any more t h a n any o t h e r
witness,
and she was p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s .
were no v a l i d g r o u n d s t o g r a n t t h e p r o t e c t i v e
Lastly,
the a f f i d a v i t
upon w h i c h
the t r i a l
order.
c o u r t based
its
g r a n t o f summary j u d g m e n t had p r e v i o u s l y b e e n
for
failure
t o f o l l o w the d i c t a t e s o f Rule
P r o . , and was n e v e r
There
excluded
56, A l a . R. C i v .
p r o p e r l y r e - a d m i t t e d ; t h e r e f o r e , i t was
n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t on t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed
Motion.
to
As s u c h ,
the P l a i n t i f f s
s h o u l d have been a l l o w e d
p r e s e n t t h e i r c l a i m s t o a j u r y and, t h e r e f o r e ,
r e s p e c t f u l l y request t h a t t h i s Court
c o u r t ' s o r d e r s a n d remand t h e c a s e
7
reverse the t r i a l
for trial.
ARGUMENT
This case
involves the P l a i n t i f f ' s
intentional i n f l i c t i o n
claims f o r
of emotional d i s t r e s s
f o r the
f a i l u r e o f Defendant G u n n e l l s t o p r o v i d e m e d i c a l care t o
t h e i r newborn c h i l d r e n ,
instead l e t t i n g
die i n f r o n t o f t h e i r p a r e n t s ' eyes.
that P l a i n t i f f Regina
the babies slowly
The t r i a l
court held
Newsome, t h e m o t h e r i n t h i s c a s e , h a d
failed to sufficiently
support her c l a i m because i t f e l l
u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a M e d i c a l L i a b i l i t y A c t (AMLA), a n d t h a t
P l a i n t i f f B u r t o n Newsome, t h e f a t h e r ,
sufficiently
s u p p o r t h i s c l a i m b e c a u s e he d i d n o t r e s p o n d
t o an a f f i d a v i t .
The
failed to
first
Both h o l d i n g s are erroneous.
fails
t o comprehend t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c l a i m
i n t h i s c a s e a n d how i t i s a f f e c t e d b y t h e AMLA's
a p p l i c a t i o n t o " p a t i e n t s " and " m e d i c a l i n j u r i e s . "
second
i s based
affidavit
on t h e i m p r o p e r
The
consideration of the
i n q u e s t i o n and t h e c o u r t ' s e r r o n e o u s
of the very d i s c o v e r y e f f o r t s the P l a i n t i f f
prevention
i n t e n d e d t o use
to support h i s c l a i m .
I.
B o t h P l a i n t i f f s s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o p u r s u e t h e i r
I n t e n t i o n a l I n f l i c t i o n o f Emotion D i s t r e s s c l a i m s
a g a i n s t t h e D e f e n d a n t b e c a u s e t h e AMLA d o e s n o t a p p l y
t o R e g i n a Newsome a n d t h i s f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n f i t s
w i t h i n t h e type t o which t h i s Court has p r e v i o u s l y
applied outrage c l a i m s .
8
The
trial
court's misapprehension of the issues of t h i s
c a s e a r e p r e v e n t i n g t h e m o t h e r o f two t w i n b a b i e s
recovering f o rthe emotional distress
intentionally
of
life.
because
their
caused h e r d u r i n g t h e i r b i r t h
doctor
and f i n a l
hours
The AMLA d o e s n o t a p p l y t o M r s . Newsome's c l a i m
i t only applies t o the " p a t i e n t " r e c e i v i n g the
medical treatment and t o a "medical i n j u r y "
that treatment.
facts
from
of this
Because
arising
from
t h e AMLA d o e s n o t a p p l y a n d t h e
case f i t w i t h i n t h e type o f cases t o which
t h i s Court has t r a d i t i o n a l l y a p p l i e d o u t r a g e c l a i m s ,
Plaintiffs
i n this
both
c a s e have v a l i d o u t r a g e c l a i m s
u n a f f e c t e d b y t h e AMLA.
A. P l a i n t i f f R e g i n a Newsome's c l a i m d o e s n o t f a l l
u n d e r t h e AMLA b e c a u s e t h e i n j u r y upon w h i c h t h e
c l a i m i s based i s not a " m e d i c a l i n j u r y " caused
d u r i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n o f m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s t o h e r as
a "patient."
In
i t s S e p t e m b e r 9, 2010, O r d e r g r a n t i n g
judgment a g a i n s t R e g i n a Newsome, t h e t r i a l
the
AMLA a p p l i e d b e c a u s e
summary
court held
that
M r s . Newsome was a " p a t i e n t "
r e c e i v i n g m e d i c a l c a r e a t t h e same t i m e t h e c l a i m s a r o s e
and,
therefore,
judgment b e c a u s e
t h e Defendant
was e n t i t l e d
t o summary
M r s . Newsome d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h e r e q u i s i t e
expert t e s t i m o n y under
the Act.
9
(C. a t 631-32.)
This
h o l d i n g , however, i l l u s t r a t e s
a basic misunderstanding of
the c o n n e c t i o n o f t h e f a c t s t o t h e c l a i m s and t h e A c t :
Mrs. Newsome was n o t t h e " p a t i e n t " u n d e r t h e A c t f o r t h e
purpose
of her Intentional
Infliction
o f Emotion
Distress
c l a i m because i t d i d not a r i s e out o f t h e care rendered t o
h e r , b u t t o h e r b a b i e s , who were s e p a r a t e " p a t i e n t s "
under
the A c t .
T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t " [ t ] h e AMLA a p p l i e s
action f o rinjury
M i J n any
o r damages o r w r o n g f u l d e a t h , w h e t h e r i n
contract or i n tort,
against a health care provider f o r
breach of the s t a n d a r d o f c a r e . ' Ala.Code
1 9 7 5 , § 6-5-
5 4 8 ( a ) . " G e o r g e H. L a n i e r Mem'l Hosp. v. A n d r e w s , 901 So.
2d 714, 720 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) .
sounding a p p l i c a t i o n ,
However, d e s p i t e s u c h a b r o a d -
t h i s Court has imposed
l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e A c t :
certain
the standard of care,
mentioned
above, o n l y a d d r e s s e s t h e d u t y o f c a r e " t o t h e p a t i e n t " a n d
the A c t o n l y c o v e r s " m e d i c a l i n j u r i e s " t o t h o s e
Id.
patients.
( c i t i n g A l a . Code § 6-5-484(a) a n d T a y l o r v . S m i t h , 892
So. 2d 887, 893 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ) .
Under t h e s e h o l d i n g s , t h e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e A c t
does n o t a p p l y t o o t h e r d o c t o r s
(because
they are not
p a t i e n t s t o whom t h e d u t y o f c a r e i s owed), s e e Thomasson
10
V. D i e t h e l m , 457 So. 2d 397, 399 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ,
bodies
(because
t h e y a r e no l o n g e r p a t i e n t s a n d c a n n o t be
"medically injured").
In
See
a similar vein,
Health Services,
A n d r e w s , 901 So. 2d a t 7 2 1 .
i n Ex p a r t e A d d i c t i o n
& Mental
I n c . , 948 So. 2d 533 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ,
Court h e l d that t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s
for
o r t o dead
this
c l a i m o f e m o t i o n a l damages
disclosure of c o n f i d e n t i a l information d i d not f a l l
u n d e r t h e AMLA, d e s p i t e t h e b r e a c h o f d u t y b e i n g one t h a t
was " d e r i v e d f r o m , a n d d e p e n d e n t upon, t h e h e a l t h - c a r e
p r o v i d e r / p a t i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p , " because t h e i n j u r y
which t h e p l a i n t i f f
sought
injury" arising directly
In
upon
r e d r e s s was n o t a " m e d i c a l
from t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p .
I d . a t 536.
t h a t c a s e , t h e c l a i m s were f o r i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y ,
breach of c o n t r a c t ,
and breach o f f i d u c i a r y duty ( a l l
d u t i e s owed t o t h e p l a i n t i f f
separate from t h e defendant's
d u t y o f due c a r e owed t o t h e p l a i n t i f f
as h i s p h y s i c i a n ) .
Similarly,
h e r e , M r s . Newsome's c l a i m i s f o r I n t e n t i o n a l
Infliction
of Emotional Distress
failure or refusal to c a l l
f o r the Defendant's
i n a N e o n a t o l o g i s t t r e a t and
a t t e m p t t o s a v e h e r newborn b a b i e s
Plaintiffs
(a d u t y owed t o t h e
s e p a r a t e from t h e Defendant's
owed t o M r s . Newsome a s h e r p h y s i c i a n ) .
11
d u t y o f due c a r e
Indeed,
t h e c h i l d r e n , who
were b o r n
Defendant's p r e - b i r t h assurances
dead, c o u l d have b r o u g h t
by t h e D e f e n d a n t .
suits,
"medical
i f they
from m e d i c a l
born
had
injuries"
In t h i s case, the P l a i n t i f f s
suing f o r r e d r e s s of "medical
arising
t h a t t h e y w o u l d be
t h e i r own
s u r v i v e d , u n d e r t h e AMLA f o r any
a l i v e d e s p i t e the
i n j u r i e s " to
caused
are
not
themselves
s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d t o them b u t
are
s u i n g on a s e p a r a t e d u t y owed t o them b y t h e D e f e n d a n t
to i n f l i c t
severe
e x t r e m e and
emotional
outrageous
d i s t r e s s on them
conduct.
In essence,
m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e c l a i m t h e A c t was
(because
i s a c l a i m b a s e d on b r e a c h
parents.
medical
through
this
i s not
intended to
t h a t c l a i m would e i t h e r belong
not
a
cover
to the t w i n s ) ; i t
o f a s e p a r a t e d u t y owed t o
their
Where t h e p l a i n t i f f does n o t s e e k r e d r e s s f o r
injuries
t h a t are a d i r e c t
patient relationship,
result
of the
doctor-
the A c t ' s p r o v i s i o n s are not
to apply to the c l a i m , r e g a r d l e s s of whether the
i s a p a t i e n t of the d o c t o r r e g a r d i n g separate
intended
plaintiff
medical
treatment.
Essentially,
treatment
the Defendant i s t r y i n g to t i e the
(which the P l a i n t i f f s
a l l e g e he
s h o u l d have
provided to t h e i r c h i l d r e n ) i n t o h i s treatment
12
medical
of
Mrs.
Newsome f o r t h e l a b o r s h o r t l y b e f o r e h a n d .
two,
C o n f l a t i n g the
however, d e n i e s t h e c h i l d r e n who were b o r n a l i v e and
l i v e d f o r s e v e r a l h o u r s u n a t t e n d e d by t h e N e o n a t o l o g y
Department a t S t . V i n c e n t
due t o Dr. G u n n e l s
d e c i s i o n t o p e r f o r m an i n v o l u n t a r y a b o r t i o n
own i n d i v i d u a l i t y
as human b e i n g s .
D e f e n d a n t was p r o v i d i n g
singular
on them
their
The f a c t t h a t t h e
t h e i r mother m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s a t
t h e i r b i r t h does n o t d e p r i v e
them o f a s e p a r a t e d u t y o f
c a r e owed t o them.
t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t
In fact,
t h e moment o f c o n c e p t i o n ,
t h e f e t u s o r embryo i s n o t a p a r t
of the mother, b u t r a t h e r has a s e p a r a t e e x i s t e n c e
t h e body o f t h e m o t h e r . " H a m i l t o n v . S c o t t ,
2012
v.
280 So. 2d 758, 761
Because o f t h i s
legally identical
injury
unless
(1973)).
(yet less e a s i l y
conflated situation)
a r e o l d e r a n d , a f t e r some s o r t o f
M r s . Newsome was t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s p a t i e n t
t o h e r knee a n d t h e t w i n s
patients
f o r severe i n t e r n a l
treated.
t h e i r parents'
Wolfe
separate duty t o the c h i l d r e n , a
w o u l d be where t h e t w i n s
accident,
within
No. 1100192,
WL 1760204, a t *8 ( A l a . May 18, 2012) ( q u o t i n g
Isbell,
"from
Allowing
f o r an
were t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s
injuries
t h a t w o u l d be
the children to bleed
fatal
out before
e y e s w o u l d n o t have b r o u g h t t h e p a r e n t s '
13
o u t r a g e c l a i m u n d e r t h e AMLA j u s t b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r was
the d o c t o r ' s
p a t i e n t on a s e p a r a t e i n j u r y , e v e n one f l o w i n g
f r o m t h e same p r e c i p i t a t i n g s i t u a t i o n .
and
moral e q u i v a l e n t
As
regard
o f what
This
i s the l e g a l
occurred.
s u c h , M r s . Newsome h o l d s t h e same l e g a l s t a t u s
t o t h e AMLA as h e r h u s b a n d on t h e i r
which t h e t r i a l
court
had a l r e a d y
Plaintiff
trial
court
Plaintiff
of care
erroneously
claim
(C. a t 632.)
i s a p a t i e n t u n d e r t h e AMLA, i t s
p r o v i s i o n s do n o t r e q u i r e them t o p r e s e n t e x p e r t
on t h e s t a n d a r d
claims,
h e l d was a v i a b l e
b e c a u s e Mr. Newsome was " n o t a p a t i e n t . "
Because n e i t h e r
IIED
with
testimony
under t h e A c t and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e
g r a n t e d summary j u d g m e n t
R e g i n a Newsome on t h a t
against
basis.
B. The P l a i n t i f f s were e n t i t l e d t o b r i n g t h e i r
i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n of emotional d i s t r e s s
c l a i m s b e c a u s e , as t h e j u d g e h e l d i n h e r o r i g i n a l
summary j udgment o r d e r , t h e s e f a c t s f a l l s q u a r e l y
among t h e t y p e s o f c l a i m s t o w h i c h t h i s C o u r t h a s
applied that claim.
Under A l a b a m a l a w , t h e t o r t o f I n t e n t i o n a l
of Emotional D i s t r e s s / O u t r a g e
"so
outrageous i n character
Infliction
i s v i a b l e when t h e c o n d u c t i s
a n d s o e x t r e m e i n d e g r e e as t o
go b e y o n d a l l p o s s i b l e b o u n d s o f d e c e n c y , a n d t o be
r e g a r d e d as a t r o c i o u s
civilized
and u t t e r l y
intolerable i n a
s o c i e t y . " L i t t l e v. R o b i n s o n , 72 So. 3d 1168,
14
1173
trial
( A l a . 2011),
rehearing denied
(June 10, 2 0 1 1 ) .
c o u r t has a l r e a d y r u l e d t h a t P l a i n t i f f B u r t o n
has a v i a b l e c l a i m f o r I n t e n t i o n a l
Infliction
The
Newsome
of Emotional
Distress despite the fact that the p a r t i c u l a r d e t a i l s of
t h i s c a s e have n e v e r come b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t .
The t r i a l
court's reasoning i s very
In h e r o r d e r , t h e t r i a l
outrageousness
(C. a t 634.)
instructive.
court noted that the
and s e v e r i t y o f conduct
necessary t o support
an o u t r a g e c l a i m have g e n e r a l l y b e e n f o u n d o n l y i n a few
c o n t e x t s , one o f w h i c h
i s s o c i e t y ' s c o n n e c t i o n t o i t s dead.
Q u o t i n g an Alabama C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f A m e r i c a n
servicemen
retrieving
powerful i l l u s t r a t i o n
the bodies of the s l a i n
a s "a
o f the symbolic importance
that the
b o d i e s o f t h e d e a d have f o r t h e h e a r t s a n d m i n d s o f t h e
l i v i n g , " W a d l e y v . S t . V i n c e n t ' s Hosp., No.
RSV,
CV-2004-1257-
2006 WL 2061785, a t *6 ( A l a . C i r . C t . J u l y 20, 2 0 0 6 ) ,
the t r i a l
court noted that the emotional connection t o the
dead a n d d y i n g c o u l d o n l y be " a m p l i f i e d b y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
present here - t h a t o f a p a r e n t and h i s dead o r d y i n g
children."
(C. a t 633.)
A l t h o u g h t h i s C o u r t has n o t d i r e c t l y h e l d t h a t such a
s i t u a t i o n c r e a t e s t h e s o r t o f d i s t r e s s r e c o v e r a b l e u n d e r an
15
outrage claim,
t h e Defendant's
(refusal to treat
and a b i l i t y
abortion.
the t r i a l
conduct
t h e i r newborn c h i l d r e n d e s p i t e t h e d u t y
t o do s o a n d t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s
and s o m e t i m e s l i f e
situations)
have a l l e g e d
regular
treatment
saving treatment o f babies i n s i m i l a r
t h a t amounts t o an u n r e q u e s t e d ,
The P l a i n t i f f s
after-birth
request that t h i s Court
uphold
c o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g on b o t h t h e i r c o u n t s a n d a l l o w
them t h e c h a n c e t o r e d r e s s t h e i r o u t r a g e a t what a
r e a s o n a b l e j u r y c o u l d c e r t a i n l y d e t e r m i n e was
e x c e e d i n g t h e bounds o f decency
conduct
e s t a b l i s h e d by c i v i l i z e d
society.
II.
The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o made two p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r s i n
p r e v e n t i n g P l a i n t i f f B u r t o n Newsome f r o m p u r s u i n g
c e r t a i n d i s c o v e r y i n support o f h i s c l a i m and i n
dismissing h i s claim f o r f a i l u r e t o support i t against
an a f f i d a v i t t h a t was i m p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t .
In
t h e case o f t h e P l a i n t i f f
the t r i a l
B u r t o n Newsome's c l a i m ,
c o u r t made a d d i t i o n a l p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r s
that
u l t i m a t e l y p r e v e n t e d Mr. Newsome f r o m a s s e r t i n g h i s own
outrage c l a i m f o r t h e circumstances surrounding t h e death
of
his twins.
trial
W i t h no g r o u n d s t o s u p p o r t i t s d e c i s i o n , t h e
c o u r t p r e v e n t e d him from t a k i n g a d e p o s i t i o n t o which
he was e n t i t l e d u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l
Thereafter,
i t d i s m i s s e d h i s c l a i m based
16
Procedure.
on t h e f a i l u r e t o
sufficiently
support
h i sclaim against
u n d e r s t o o d t o be i m p r o p e r l y
separately,
his
these
before
the court.
e r r o r s worked t o d e p r i v e
right to assert h i sclaim at t r i a l ,
court's holdings
a n a f f i d a v i t he
should
be r e v e r s e d ,
T o g e t h e r and
the P l a i n t i f f of
and t h e t r i a l
a l l o w i n g Mr. Newsome
to proceed w i t h d i s c o v e r y and t h e p r o s e c u t i o n
of h i s claim.
A. The t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by d e n y i n g t h e
P l a i n t i f f s deposition of the neonatologist, l a c k i n g
any showing t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f had n o t f o l l o w e d t h e
c o r r e c t p r o c e d u r e o r t h a t j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e d .
In t h e Defendant's Renewed M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment, t h e
Defendant a s s e r t s t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f conducted no new d i s c o v e r y
on the i s s u e of t h e b a b i e s ' post-mortem h a n d l i n g ,
(C. a t 760),
and the t r i a l c o u r t a l s o r e l i e d on t h a t i n i t s March 16, 2012,
Order. {C. a t 816.)
However, t h e P l a i n t i f f had attempted t o
a c q u i r e j u s t such e v i d e n c e ,
prevented
but t h e t r i a l c o u r t
erroneously
him from d o i n g so. The whole p o i n t o f n o t i c i n g t h e
d e p o s i t i o n o f t h e n e o n a t o l o g i s t , Dr. T e r r y B i e r d , was t o a c q u i r e
such e v i d e n c e about t h e Defendant's outrageous conduct i n t h e
handling of the babies.
The
trial
c o u r t , however, g r a n t e d
p r o t e c t i v e order without
p l e a d i n g s and s u b m i s s i o n s
754.)
the neonatologist's
opinion " [ a ] f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the
and arguments o f t h e p a r t i e s . "
[C. a t
The arguments made by t h e p a r t i e s upon which t h e c o u r t
based i t s November 2, 2 011,
Order d i d not support
17
d e n i a l of t h e
P l a i n t i f f s ' M o t i o n t o Compel:
Civil
(1) under the Alabama Rules of
Procedure, the d e p o s i n g p a r t y i s not r e q u i r e d t o serve
company where the deponent i s known; (2) the t e s t i m o n y
was
r e l e v a n t and,
where p o t e n t i a l l y i n a d m i s s i b l e ,
sought
reasonably
c a l c u l a t e d t o l e a d t o the d i s c o v e r y of a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e ;
Dr. B i e r d would not have been s a d d l e d
expense; and
(4) she was
p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h the
subpoena.
{i.e., that
d e p o s i t i o n p r o c e d u r e must be used where the
might ask q u e s t i o n s
(3)
w i t h undue burden or
As t o the f i r s t p o i n t r a i s e d by the w i t n e s s
corporate
the
about the company f o r which the
the
party
witness
works). Rule 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) o f the Alabama Rules of C i v i l
Procedure
explicitly states:
A p a r t y may i n the p a r t y ' s n o t i c e and i n a subpoena name as
the deponent a p u b l i c or p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n . . . and
d e s c r i b e w i t h r e a s o n a b l e p a r t i c u l a r i t y the m a t t e r s on which
examination i s requested.
Ala.
R. C i v . P. 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 )
(emphasis added).
Nowhere i n the Rule
does i t s t a t e t h a t t h i s p r o c e d u r e i s r e q u i r e d .
A c t u a l l y , the
l a s t sentence of t h e r u l e a l s o s t a t e s e x p l i c i t l y ,
i t was
not c l e a r from the p e r m i s s i v e
language i n the
sentence, t h a t " [ t ] h i s s u b d i v i s i o n (b)(6) does not
t a k i n g a d e p o s i t i o n by any
j u s t i n case
first
preclude
o t h e r p r o c e d u r e a u t h o r i z e d i n these
rules." Id.
Moreover, the comments t o the r u l e d i r e c t l y address t h i s
situation:
18
Of course, t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r d e s i g n a t i o n i s not r e q u i r e d
i n d i s c o v e r y from o r g a n i z a t i o n s and r e g u l a r d e p o s i t i o n
procedure i s a v a i l a b l e when t h e n a t u r a l p e r s o n h a v i n g t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n i s known t o t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y .
Id•,
Committee Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n .
Plaintiff
As such, t h e
c o u l d c l e a r l y n o t i c e t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f Dr. B i e r d
d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t she works f o r a company and h e r p e r s o n a l
knowledge o f t h a t company's p o l i c i e s might a r i s e i n t h e
deposition.
Furthermore, t h e t e s t i m o n y
sought from Dr. B i e r d
fell
w i t h i n the scope of d i s c o v e r y s e t out i n Rule 2 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) .
That
Rule s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
P a r t i e s may o b t a i n d i s c o v e r y r e g a r d i n g any m a t t e r , not
p r i v i l e g e d , which i s r e l e v a n t t o the subj e c t m a t t e r
i n v o l v e d i n the pending a c t i o n . . . . I t i s not ground f o r
o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n sought w i l l be I n a d m i s s i b l e
at the t r i a l i f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n sought appears r e a s o n a b l y
c a l c u l a t e d t o l e a d t o the d i s c o v e r y o f a d m i s s i b l e evidence,
Ala.
R. C i v . P. 26.
Dr. B i e r d ' s M o t i o n f o r P r o t e c t i v e Order a s s e r t e d t h a t she
had no p e r s o n a l
knowledge o f the events o f t h e s u i t and t h a t she
c o u l d " o n l y base such t e s t i m o n y
speculation."
(C. a t 700.)
speculative testimony
on h e a r s a y and o f f e r
Nevertheless,
any such hearsay and
would r e f i n e t h e P l a i n t i f f s '
further
d i s c o v e r y even though i t might not be a d m i s s i b l e a t t r i a l .
Furthermore, h e r d i r e c t knowledge o f the a b i l i t i e s
workings o f S t . V i n c e n t ' s
and i n n e r
n e o n a t o l o g y p r a c t i c e would
d i r e c t e v i d e n c e f o r Dr, G u n n e l l ' s
19
provide
i n t e n t (by showing t h e u s u a l
c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o r a c o n s u l t w i t h n e o n a t o l o g y ) and the
outrageousness o f h i s conduct
{by showing the o p t i o n s he had,
which he i g n o r e d , s i m p l y l e a v i n g the b a b i e s , u n a t t e n d e d , t o d i e
on a t a b l e i n f r o n t o f t h e i r p a r e n t s ' e y e s ) .
She c o u l d f u r t h e r
t e s t i f y t o any knowledge she has of h o s p i t a l p r o c e d u r e s
r e g a r d i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n between o b s t e t r i c s and n e o n a t o l o g y .
Dr. B i e r d i n f a c t s t a t e d i n her motion f o r p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r t h a t
she o n l y wanted t o t e s t i f y as t o the p o l i c y at S t . V i n c e n t ' s
r e g a r d i n g the t r e a t m e n t of premature b a b i e s and not the
s p e c i f i c s of t h i s case - c l e a r l y because Gunnels i n f a c t
v i o l a t e d h o s p i t a l p o l i c y i n t h i s case. The reasons b e h i n d t h i s
f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w p o l i c y by Gunnels c l e a r l y form t h e b a s i s f o r
an i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n of e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and o u t r a g e
c l a i m s by P l a i n t i f f s . The t e s t i m o n y sought from Dr. B i e r d
c l e a r l y f e l l w i t h i n the scope of d i s c o v e r y under the R u l e s .
The judge may
have g r a n t e d the M o t i o n f o r P r o t e c t i v e Order
under Rule 26(c) as w e l l , which p r o v i d e s t h a t the c o u r t may
"make any o r d e r t h a t j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s t o p r o t e c t a p a r t y or
person from annoyance, embarrassment, o p p r e s s i o n , or undue
burden or expense"; however, Dr. B i e r d showed none o f the named
reasons f o r p r o t e c t i n g a person from d e p o s i t i o n .
Indeed,
Dr.
B i e r d would have endured no burden of any of the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d
reasons g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t endured by any o t h e r p e r s o n w i t h a day
job.
She p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e at a l l t h a t would have e n t i t l e d
20
her t o such p r o t e c t i o n .
Her s u p p o r t of such a burden was the
r i d i c u l o u s argument t h a t the P l a i n t i f f n o t i c i n g her as a l a y
w i t n e s s would somehow f o r c e her t o p r e p a r e as i f she were an
e x p e r t w i t n e s s . (C. a t 700.)
The P l a i n t i f f s never asked her t o
take on such a burden so, i f she had, i t would have been of her
own v o l i t i o n .
I f t h i s were the b a s i s of the t r i a l
court's
r u l i n g , i t was an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n ,
L a s t l y , Dr. B i e r d put f o r t h the u n s u p p o r t e d a s s e r t i o n t h a t
she had not been p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h the subpoena.
The
subpoena was a c t u a l l y s e r v e d on Dr. B i e r d at her permanent
r e s i d e n c e on the n i g h t of August 24, 2011.
of
{C. at 752.)
s e r v i c e was sent t o the c l e r k ' s o f f i c e on August 25,
Proof
2011,
and i t appears on t h e case a c t i o n summary i n the r e c o r d .
(C. at
23. )
court
to
the
As such, no p l a u s i b l e reason e x i s t e d f o r the t r i a l
g r a n t the w i t n e s s ' s M o t i o n f o r a P r o t e c t i v e Order and deny
P l a i n t i f f ' s M o t i o n t o Compel, and the judge abused her
d i s c r e t i o n by d e n y i n g the P l a i n t i f f s of e v i d e n c e t o which they
were e n t i t l e d under the R u l e s .
B. The D e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l
c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y r e l i e d was n o t p r o p e r l y
c o n s i d e r e d upon t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed M o t i o n
b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t had p r e v i o u s l y e x c l u d e d i t
f r o m e v i d e n c e and, d e s p i t e t h e j u d g e ' s e r r o n e o u s
a l l u s i o n t h e r e t o , the Defendant never r e s u b m i t t e d
it.
21
The
trial
c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y b a s e d i t s g r a n t o f summary
judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e D e f e n d a n t a n d a g a i n s t
Plaintiff
B u r t Newsome on t h e s u p p o s e d f a c t t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t h a d
p r e s e n t e d an a f f i d a v i t
as e v i d e n c e ,
failed
However, t h e a f f i d a v i t
in
to contradict.
the judge's
o r d e r was n o t , i n f a c t ,
D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed M o t i o n
and o u t s i d e t h e e v i d e n c e
attached to the
excluded
Motion.
filed
the a f f i d a v i t
at issue
1, 2 0 1 0 , a t t a c h e d t o a M o t i o n f o r
R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n and w e l l
ruling
referred to
before the court f o r i t s
Defendant o r i g i n a l l y
on O c t o b e r
the P l a i n t i f f
and t h e r e f o r e r e m a i n e d
c o n s i d e r a t i o n on t h e Renewed
The
which
on t h e o r i g i n a l
Because o f t h i s
fact,
a f t e r t h e S e p t e m b e r 9, 2010,
Motion
f o r Summary J u d g m e n t .
the t r i a l
court duly excluded i t ,
m a k i n g r e f e r e n c e t h e r e t o i n i t s November 22, 2 0 1 0 , O r d e r
denying
the Motion
Furthermore,
t o Reconsider.
because t h e a f f i d a v i t
e v i d e n c e upon i t s o r i g i n a l
(C. a t 654.)
had been e x c l u d e d
submission,
the t r i a l
from
c o u r t had
t o make r e f e r e n c e t o i t s r e - a d m i s s i o n i n i t s M a r c h 16,
2012,
816.)
O r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed M o t i o n .
The p r o b l e m
with the evidence's
22
(C. a t
"resubmission" i s
t h a t i t was
s t a t e d by
not,
i n fact,
the t r i a l
While the
Defendant d i d a t t a c h h i s p r e v i o u s
for Reconsideration,
i n c l u d e the
in i t s holding.
reference
the
Nor
affidavit
reference
w i t h the
trial
763-791},
by
court
Motions but
as s u p p o r t
merely
for i t s
factual
B e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e was
Renewed M o t i o n ,
to the a f f i d a v i t
referred to nothing
(C. a t
d i d t h e Renewed M o t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e
arguments of those
the
Motions f o r
on
(C. a t 760.)
resubmitted
as
relied
a d d r e s s e d them i n a f o o t n o t e
paragraph.
t o t h e Renewed M o t i o n
court.
Summary Judgment and
he d i d n o t
attached
i n the
the
Defendant's
i n that motion,
in
r e c o r d , and
trial
c o u l d not have p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d
never
the
i t on
the
effect,
court
Renewed
Motion.
CONCLUSION
T h i s c a s e has
e r r o r s by
reached t h i s
the t r i a l
c o u r t , b o t h s u b s t a n t i v e and
However, b e c a u s e t h e
under Alabama law
Plaintiffs
prevented
and
s h o u l d be
from doing
ultimately present
C o u r t b a s e d on
Plaintiffs'
are not
allowed
claims
procedural.
are v a l i d
s u b j e c t t o t h e AMLA,
claims
the
to conduct discovery--and
so on b a s e l e s s ,
their
multiple
hollow
claims at t r i a l .
23
not
grounds—and
Therefore,
the
Plaintiffs
respectfully
request that t h i s Court reverse the
orders of the t r i a l
c o u r t a n d remand t h i s
case f o r f u r t h e r
d i s c o v e r y and t r i a l
on t h e c l a i m s o f b o t h
Plaintiffs.
R e s p e c t f u l l y submitted t h i s t h e 31st day o f August,
2012 .
:7t^
^
BURTON NEWSOME (NEW04 7}
NEWSOME LAW, L L C
P.O. BOX 382753 (35238)
194 NARROWS DRIVE
SUITE 103
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35242
PHONE: (205) 747-1972
FAX:
(205) 747-1971
EMAIL: b u r t ( 3 n e w s o m e l a w l l c . com
24
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t I have s e r v e d a c o p y o f t h e
f o r e g o i n g upon t h e b e l o w l i s t e d p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n by
p l a c i n g a c o p y o f same i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s M a i l , p o s t a g e
p r e p a i d and p r o p e r l y a d d r e s s e d , t h i s t h e 3 1 s t day o f
August, 2012.
Hon. J o s e p h S. M i l l e r
S t a r n e s & A t c h i s o n , LLP
100 B r o o k w o o d P l a c e , 1^^ F l o o r
B i r m i n g h a m , AL 35259
(205) 868-6000
B u r t o n Newsome (NEW047)
Attorney f o r Appellants
25