237 So. 3d 867
Ala.2017Background
- Collins treated by chiropractor Dr. Herring for knee, shoulder, and back injuries; cold packs were part of knee treatment.
- On July 9, 2012, an assistant took a cold pack from a refrigerator (after the clinic had been closed seven days) and placed the hard pack directly on Collins’s knee.
- Collins felt heat when the pack was removed; hours later blisters appeared and later formed scars at the application site.
- Collins sued (medical-malpractice) alleging the cold pack application caused burns; defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting Herring’s affidavit denying breach or causation.
- Defendants argued Collins failed to designate a medical expert as required by the Alabama Medical Liability Act; Collins argued expert testimony was unnecessary because the injury and causation were within common knowledge.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to establish standard of care | Collins: no; the lack of care (akin to frostbite/burn) is within lay understanding | Herring: yes; AMLA requires a similarly situated expert to show breach | Court: expert testimony not required because lack of care was readily understandable by a layperson (exception to the general rule) |
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove causation | Collins: no; blistering after a refrigerated hard cold pack establishes probable causation within lay knowledge | Herring: yes; causation in malpractice usually requires expert proof | Court: expert testimony not required because causation was readily understandable and the defendants had exclusive control of the cold pack |
| Whether Herring’s affidavit alone defeats plaintiff’s case at summary judgment | Collins: testimony and facts raise a genuine issue of material fact | Herring: affidavit establishes compliance with standard and negates causation | Court: affidavit did not eliminate factual dispute; plaintiff’s lay-evidence fits recognized exceptions and survives summary judgment |
| Whether plaintiff’s failure to designate expert under AMLA mandates summary judgment | Collins: AMLA exception applies; no expert necessary here | Herring: failure to designate expert is dispositive | Court: AMLA expert requirement does not bar cases where the negligence and causation are within common knowledge or where defendant’s testimony would supply the needed proof; reverse summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 851 So.2d 33 (reformulates exceptions to expert-testimony rule; clarifies lay-understanding exception)
- Lyons v. Walker Reg'l Med. Ctr., 791 So.2d 937 (standard rule requiring similarly situated expert in malpractice actions)
- Tuscaloosa Orthopedic Appliance Co. v. Wyatt, 460 So.2d 156 (lay-understanding exception where lack of care is obvious)
- McGathey v. Brookwood Health Servs., Inc., 143 So.3d 95 (no expert needed for burns from insufficiently cooled instrument)
- Sorrell v. King, 946 So.2d 854 (discussion of causation proof standards in malpractice cases)
- DCH Healthcare Auth. v. Duckworth, 883 So.2d 1214 (expert testimony required for causation unless issue is within lay ken)