M.C. v. Tallassee Rehabilitation, P.C.
2015 Ala. LEXIS 123
Ala.2015Background
- M.C. alleged that on Nov. 12, 2009, physical therapist Kristopher Vanderwall sexually assaulted her during a physical-therapy visit (touching breasts and genitals); Vanderwall denied any inappropriate touching and claimed all acts were part of providing therapy.
- M.C. sued Vanderwall (assault and battery) and Tallassee Rehabilitation (negligent/wanton hiring); claims against Tallassee Rehab later dismissed with prejudice.
- M.C. served discovery seeking identification of other persons who had complained of Vanderwall’s inappropriate touching (Interrogatories 9 and 10); Vanderwall objected invoking the Alabama Medical Liability Act (AMLA), § 6-5-480 et seq., and its prohibition on discovery of "other acts."
- The trial court held that the AMLA did not apply to M.C.’s assault-and-battery claim (granting M.C.’s partial summary judgment/declaratory relief) and ordered Vanderwall to answer Interrogatories 9 and 10; the court attempted Rule 54(b) certification.
- Vanderwall appealed the partial summary judgment and petitioned for a writ of mandamus to vacate both the declaratory ruling and the discovery order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.C.) | Defendant's Argument (Vanderwall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s Rule 54(b) certification of its declaratory ruling is appealable | The declaratory ruling that the AMLA does not apply is final and appealable | Certification was proper and appeal lies | Dismissed appeal: the declaratory ruling did not finally adjudicate a substantive claim; Rule 54(b) certification was inappropriate |
| Whether the AMLA governs a claim alleging sexual assault that occurred during a medical visit | Sexual assault is not a "medical injury" and is not within AMLA’s scope; AMLA applies only to malpractice/standard-of-care claims | AMLA applies because the alleged misconduct occurred during delivery of professional services (place/time) | AMLA does not apply: sexual assault that is not part of providing medical care is outside AMLA’s scope |
| Whether § 6-5-551’s prohibition on discovery of "other acts" bars interrogatories seeking other complaints against Vanderwall | Discovery of other complaints is permissible because AMLA does not apply | § 6-5-551 bars discovery of other acts in medical-malpractice cases | Mandamus denied as to declaratory ruling; petition denied on discovery issue because AMLA does not apply, so interrogatories must be answered |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate vehicle to review the interlocutory declaratory ruling | Petition seeks to prevent application of AMLA now and avoid future prejudice | Mandamus should issue because interlocutory ruling is erroneous | Mandamus denied as to challenge to declaratory ruling: appeal after final judgment is adequate remedy; mandamus review allowed for discovery privilege only, but not granted because AMLA inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Mock v. Allen, 783 So.2d 828 (Ala. 2000) (held sexual misconduct occurring as part of treatment was governed by AMLA)
- O’Rear v. B.H., 69 So.3d 106 (Ala. 2011) (applied Mock: sexual misconduct during treatment falls under AMLA)
- Ex parte Gentiva Health Servs., Inc., 8 So.3d 943 (Ala. 2008) (treats AMLA § 6-5-551 discovery restriction as a privilege subject to mandamus review)
- McCulloch v. Roberts, 290 Ala. 303 (Ala. 1973) (finality test: judgment must ascertain and declare parties’ substantive rights)
- Kaufmann v. Schroeder, 241 Ill.2d 194 (Ill. 2011) (sexual assault by physician did not ‘‘arise out of’’ medical care and thus fell outside medical-liability scheme)