Mary Ann Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama.
102 So. 3d 362
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Wilkinson, employed by the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama (the Board) under yearly contracts that limited dispute resolution to filing with the Board of Adjustment.
- In July 2010 Wilkinson sued the Board alleging underpayment and overpayment findings from an audit covering Oct 2003–Sept 2007, seeking $10,162.08 plus requests for further audits through Dec 2009.
- The Board moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for immunity, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, arguing § 14 immunity shielded the Board as a state agency.
- The trial court dismissed, concluding the Board was a State agency funded by State appropriations, thus immune.
- Wilkinson argued the Board is not an immune State agency, so the Board of Adjustment lacks jurisdiction over her claims.
- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding the Board is not an 'immediate and strictly governmental agenc[y]' entitled to § 14 immunity and that the Board of Adjustment has no jurisdiction over these claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board is entitled to § 14 immunity as a State agency | Wilkinson (board not immune). | Board is an immunity-bearing State agency. | Board not immune; not an immediate, strictly governmental state agency. |
| Whether the Board of Adjustment is the proper forum for Wilkinson's claims | Claims fall within Board of Adjustment jurisdiction. | Board of Adjustment has no jurisdiction due to § 14 immunity. | Remains improper forum; Board of Adjustment lacks jurisdiction for these claims. |
| What is the proper standard for reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal in this context | Alabama precedents (Newman v. Savas) require acceptance of allegations at face value for jurisdiction. | Standard focuses on lack of jurisdiction; constructs depend on immunity analysis. | Standard: no presumption of correctness; accept allegations as true for jurisdictional challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala. 2003) (standard for reviewing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on motion to dismiss)
- Ex parte Greater Mobile-Washington County Mental Health-Mental Retardation Bd., Inc., 940 So.2d 990 (Ala. 2006) (treasury factor central to immunity; immunity shields state treasury, not all entities)
- Staudt, Armory Comm'n of Alabama v. Staudt, 388 So.2d 991 (Ala. 1980) (three-factor test for § 14 immunity: power, relation to state, function)
- White v. Alabama Insane Hospital, 138 Ala. 479 (1903) (incorporated state institution immune when state ownership/oversight and funds indicate state control)
- Lee v. Cunningham, 234 Ala. 639 (1937) (Board of Adjustment jurisdiction over claims not justiciable in courts due to immunity)
- Vining v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, 492 So.2d 607 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) (considered Board as a state-associated entity for purposes of immunity)
- Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, 620 So.2d 13 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992) (Board described as state agency in context of immunity discussion)
- Thomas v. Alabama Mun. Elec. Auth., 432 So.2d 470 (Ala. 1983) (constitutional immunity framework)
- MH-MRB (Ex parte Greater Mobile-Washington County Mental Health-Mental Retardation Bd., Inc.), 940 So.2d 990 (Ala. 2006) (expanded, post-Staudt discussion of Treasury factor and entity status)
- Vaughan v. Sibley, 709 So.2d 482 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) (Board of Adjustment jurisdiction referenced in immunity context)