Paradise v. Highlands Medical Center
78 So. 3d 399
| Ala. | 2011Background
- May 20, 2006: Paradise treated in Highlands ER; chest X-ray; Paradise fell in radiology causing injuries.
- May 16, 2008: Paradise plaintiffs sue Highlands for negligence and wantonness under Alabama Medical Liability Act, including fictitious-party defendants.
- Interrogatory #12 sought ER staff on May 20, 2006; Highlands objected broadly but allowed identification of treating personnel.
- July 12, 2010: Highlands discloses treating physicians, including Dr. Younus Ismail; plaintiffs amend to name Ismail as defendant on July 29, 2010.
- Plaintiffs’ discovery delays and failure to identify Ismail before filing the original complaint are argued to bar limitations under Ala. Code 6-5-482; Dr. Ismail moves to dismiss.
- Trial court denies Ismail’s summary-judgment motion on Feb. 11, 2011; mandamus petition granted directing entry of summary judgment for Ismail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 9(h)/Rule 15(c) relation back applies | Paradise argues relation back should apply due to diligent discovery | Ismail argues due diligence failures prevent relation back | Relation back not allowed; due diligence lacking |
| Whether plaintiffs’ failure to identify Ismail before filing bars the action | Paradise contends discovery tolled limitations | Ismail argues limitations barred due to late substitution | Two-year limit not tolled; Ismail entitled to summary judgment |
| Whether the trial court properly denied summary judgment given limitations defense | Paradise asserts genuine issues of material fact remain | Ismail asserts undisputed facts show no liability within period | Court erred; mandamus directs entry of summary judgment for Ismail |
| Whether mandamus is proper to compel summary judgment in favor of Ismail | Not necessary; court should decide on merits | Summary judgment warranted based on statute of limitations and lack of relation back | Mandamus granted; trial court to grant summary judgment for Ismail |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Chemical Lime Co. of Alabama, Inc., 916 So.2d 594 (Ala.2005) (lays out Rule 9(h)/relation-back framework and due-diligence standard)
- Ex parte Snow, 764 So.2d 531 (Ala.1999) (discovery duties and timely pursuit of developing identity to toll limitations)
- Ex parte Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., 7 So.3d 999 (Ala.2008) (emphasizes due-diligence requirement for fictitious-party relief)
- Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So.2d 726 (Ala.1993) (precludes relief when plaintiff fails to investigate identify of known physician)
- Weber v. Freeman, 3 So.3d 825 (Ala.2008) (knowledge of treating physicians imposes diligence before limitations run)
- Crawford v. Sundback, 678 So.2d 1057 (Ala.1996) (requires knowledge-based diligence for relation back)
- Kinard v. C.A. Kelly & Co., 468 So.2d 133 (Ala.1985) (limits use of fictitious-party process when not genuinely pursued)