Natalie Versiglio v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14437
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama sought sovereign-immunity protection as an arm of the State; district court denied immunity under the Eleventh Amendment; Alabama Supreme Court later held the Board is an arm of the state and immune in state court; Eleventh Circuit reversed and held immunity applies, based on Wilkinson decision; opinion discusses Staudt/MH-MRB framework and state-court treatment as controlling; Board is self-supporting and not directly funded by the State treasury, but the court ultimately follows Alabama Supreme Court language recognizing Board as a State agency with §14 immunity; Board’s authority to hire counsel subject to Attorney General approval and Board of Adjustment’s jurisdiction are distinguished in light of immunity; case is remanded for consistent judgment in light of the immunity determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Board an arm of the State entitled to §14 immunity? | Versiglio argues no immunity, Board is independent. | Board contends it is an arm of the State and immune. | Yes; Board is an arm of the State and immune. |
| Does Alabama Supreme Court Wilkinson control immunity analysis? | Wilkinson supports non-immunity for the Board. | Wilkinson confirms Board is an arm and immune. | Wilkinson controls; Board entitled to immunity. |
| If immune, is the Board of Adjustment the proper forum for Wilkinson's claims? | Board's immunity would not permit court proceedings. | Board of Adjustment may handle state-immune claims. | Court of Civil Appeals erred; Board is immune, affecting forum analysis; remand for judgment consistent with immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (1997) (federal standard for state agency status requires analyzing state-law definitions)
- Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) (Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to suits against arms of the state)
- Staudt, Armory Comm'n of Alabama v. Staudt, 388 So. 2d 991 (Ala. 1980) (test for whether entity is an arm of the state: character, relation, function)
- MH-MRB, Ex parte Greater Mobile-Washington County Mental Health-Mental Retardation Bd., Inc., 940 So. 2d 990 (Ala. 2006) (treasury factor is important in determining immunity; state funds relationship matters)
- Mooneyham v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 802 So. 2d 200 (Ala. 2001) (board as arm of state with immunity where funding and structure show state integration)
- Rodgers v. Hopper, 768 So. 2d 963 (Ala. 2000) (distinguishes boards with broad state-delegated powers from independent entities for immunity)
- Ex parte Toyota Motor Corp., 684 So. 2d 132 (Ala. 1996) (de novo review standard in certiorari context)
- Ex parte Exxon Mobil Corp., 926 So. 2d 303 (Ala. 2005) (standard of review and immunity considerations in certiorari)
- White v. Alabama Insane Hosp., 138 Ala. 479 (1903) (historic framing of state immunity and agency status)
- Ex parte Greater Mobile-Washington County Mental Health-Mental Retardation Bd., Inc., 940 So.2d 990 (Ala. 2006) (MH-MRB factors for immunity and treasury considerations)