Ex parte Air Evac EMS, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Ex parte Air Evac EMS, Inc. (In re: Earnest Charles Jones, by and through Ovetta Jones, as spouse and next friend v. Bryan Heath Wester) (Dallas Circuit Court: CV-20-900199).
SC-2024-0732
Ala.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Earnest Charles Jones was injured on August 27, 2018, during a helicopter medical transport, where he allegedly suffered throat injuries due to the removal of a nasal-gastro tube by flight nurse Wester of Air Evac EMS, Inc.
- The original complaint (filed August 24, 2020) alleged negligence/wantonness against Wester and employer Air Evac for the tube removal.
- Almost four years later, in April 2024, Joneses amended their complaint to allege entirely new facts: that Wester had stolen and replaced ketamine with saline a day before the transport, and that other Air Evac personnel failed to discover or respond to the tampered medication during Earnest's transport.
- Air Evac moved for summary judgment, arguing the amended claims were time-barred by statute of limitations/repose, and that these allegations did not relate back to the initial complaint under Rule 15(c)(2).
- The trial court denied summary judgment; Air Evac sought mandamus relief from the Alabama Supreme Court, arguing the amended complaint was untimely and unrelated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint relates back under Rule 15(c)(2) | Amended claims are related and arose from the same care episode as initial claims | Amended complaint alleges entirely new facts and conduct distinct in time and kind | No relation back; new facts and theories not a refinement of initial allegations |
| Whether the amended complaint is timely under AMLA statutes | Amended complaint should be allowed as related to initial timely claims | Amended complaint not filed within statute of limitations or repose and is barred | Claims in amended complaint are time-barred under both statute of limitations and repose |
| Applicability of summary judgment | Further discovery needed before summary judgment | Legal question apparent on the face of pleadings; no material fact issues | No genuine issue of fact; summary judgment appropriate as a matter of law |
| Appropriateness of mandamus relief | Ordinary appeal is adequate | Appeal is inadequate where dismissal obvious from pleadings | Mandamus appropriate; summary judgment should have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Hodge, 153 So. 3d 734 (Ala. 2014) (describing requirements for mandamus relief)
- Ex parte Affinity Hospital, LLC, 373 So. 3d 180 (Ala. 2022) (explaining that amended complaints must refine, not fundamentally alter, original complaint and factual bases in order to relate back under Rule 15(c)(2))
- Ex parte Abbott Lab'ys, 342 So. 3d 186 (Ala. 2021) (mandamus appropriate when complaint reveals defendant is entitled to dismissal as a matter of law)
- Prior v. Cancer Surgery of Mobile, P.C., 959 So. 2d 1092 (Ala. 2006) (relating to Rule 15(c)(2) relation-back analysis)