O'Rear v. B.H.
2011 Ala. LEXIS 32
Ala.2011Background
- BH sued Dr. O'Rear for medical malpractice, assault, negligence, wantonness, and outrage, plus negligent hiring of the insurer, with Baptist Health Centers dismissed; case tried to a Walker County jury; verdict: $1,000,000 compensatory and $2,000,000 punitive against O'Rear; trial court denied posttrial motions; the record shows ongoing sexual relationship with BH beginning when BH was a minor and continued into adulthood, with prescriptions provided for drug addiction; record includes evidence of BH's addiction and resulting harms; the majority held some claims arise under AMLA while others do not based on doctor-patient relationship timing; the Court considered AMLA applicability, standard of care, and sufficiency of evidence for assault and outrage, as well as damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMLA applicability to all claims | BH claims arise from medical care; AMLA governs. | All actions stem from physician treatment; AMLA applies. | Some claims outside AMLA; others within AMLA depending on relationship. |
| Breach of standard of care under AMLA | Expert testimony or equivalent established standard; doctor admitted standard. | Plaintiff failed to prove breach with expert testimony. | Sufficient evidence of breach under AMLA; doctor testified to standards. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault | Sexual acts started with minor BH and continued; evidence supports assault. | Consensual acts negate assault. | Evidence supports assault and battery; presumption of injury from sexual contact with a minor. |
| Tort of outrage viability | Conduct was extreme and outrageous; caused severe distress. | Limited scope of outrage; consensual aspects. | Outrage claim viable under circumstances. |
| Damages award review | Award appropriate given BH's emotional distress and addiction harms. | Award excessive; no physical injury required. | Damages affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williford v. Emerton, 935 So.2d 1150 (Ala.2004) (presumption of correctness for jury verdict; weight of evidence deference)
- Thompson v. Patton, 6 So.3d 1129 (Ala.2008) (standard for reviewing judgments; view evidence in favor of nonmovant)
- Campbell v. Burns, 512 So.2d 1341 (Ala.1987) (presumption verdict correct; not reversed for mere excess/insufficiency)
- Friendly Credit Union v. Campbell, 579 So.2d 1288 (Ala.1991) (strengthened presumption of correctness when denying new trial)
- Alabama Power Co. v. Murray, 751 So.2d 494 (Ala.1999) (no fixed standard for mental-anguish damages; review for abuse of discretion)