Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama
102 So. 3d 368
Ala.2012Background
- Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama sought certiorari review of the Court of Civil Appeals decision that it was not a State agency and lacked Art. I, § 14 immunity.
- Wilkinson sued the Board for contract-based damages rooted in an audit by the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, alleging underpayments and overpayments totaling a net due of $10,162.08, plus requests for further audits.
- Board moved to dismiss on grounds of subject-matter immunity under § 14, failure to state a claim, and improper venue; Wilkinson argued the Board was not immune and could not invoke Board of Adjustment jurisdiction.
- Court of Civil Appeals held the Board not an immune State agency under § 14, applying Staudt/MH-MRB factors and noting the Board’s self-funded status and limited State oversight.
- Alabama Supreme Court reverses, holding the Board is an arm of the State with § 14 immunity, and that Board of Adjustment lacks jurisdiction over Wilkinson’s claims because immunity shields the court from suit; case remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board qualifies for § 14 immunity as a State agency | Wilkinson: Board is not an immediate governmental agency. | Board: Board is an arm of the State and entitled to § 14 immunity. | Board is an arm of the State entitled to § 14 immunity. |
| How the Staudt/MH-MRB factors apply to the Board’s status | MH-MRB treasury factor undermines immunity; funds are not State funds. | Complete relationship and treasury/overhead factors support immunity. | Factors support immunity; Board is a State agency. |
| Relation of funds and State funding to the Board’s status | Board’s funds are self-funded; not centrally appropriated by State Treasury. | Funds appropriated to the Board remain State funds and trigger immunity. | Funds are State funds; immunity remains intact. |
| Whether Board of Adjustment is an appropriate forum for Wilkinson's claims | Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over contract claims against the State. | If Board has § 14 immunity, courts lack jurisdiction; Board of Adjustment would be proper. | Board of Adjustment would have jurisdiction, but immunity bars the suit in court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armory Commission of Alabama v. Staudt, 388 So.2d 991 (Ala. 1980) (three-factor test for determining state-immunity status)
- Ex parte Greater Mobile-Washington County Mental Health-Mental Retardation Bd., Inc., 940 So.2d 990 (Ala.2006) (treasury factor and breadth of immunity considerations)
- Mooneyham v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 802 So.2d 200 (Ala.2001) (Board as an arm of the State with immunity under § 14)
- Rodgers v. Hopper, 768 So.2d 963 (Ala.2000) (ACIFA immunity framework; contracting and financial structure)
- Lee v. Cunningham, 234 Ala. 639 (Ala.1937) (Board of Adjustment jurisdiction limits; immunity interplay)
- Vaughan v. Sibley, 709 So.2d 482 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (Board of Adjustment jurisdiction over state-claims under immunity)
- Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608 (U.S. 1935) (recognizes state regulation of dentistry as governmental power)
- White v. Alabama Insane Hospital, 138 Ala. 479 (Ala.1903) (historical basis for immunity context)