Allen v. Mobile Infirmary

Decision Date19 March 1982
Citation413 So.2d 1051
PartiesWinnie ALLEN, as Executrix of the Estate of Anna Z. Knight, Deceased v. The MOBILE INFIRMARY and Dr. Jeff Lousteau. 80-699.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Norman J. Gale, Jr. of Clay, Massey, Street & Gale, Mobile, for appellant.

James J. Duffy, Jr., and Edward C. Greene of Inge, Twitty, Duffy & Prince, Mobile, for appellee Mobile Infirmary.

Broox G. Holmes and Edward A. Dean of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile, and Charles Stakely, Jr. of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, Montgomery, for appellee Dr. Jeff Lousteau.

MADDOX, Justice.

This is a medical malpractice action. Plaintiff sued The Mobile Infirmary and Dr. Jeff Lousteau, and alleged alternatively that defendants either negligently (first cause of action), or recklessly (second cause of action), allowed a respirator tube to be pulled from the throat of plaintiff's decedent, which plaintiff alleged caused decedent's post-operative distress and ultimately led to her death some fifteen days later. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by Judge Braxton Kittrell in the Circuit Court of Mobile County. After a careful review of the record, including affidavits and depositions, we reverse.

Plaintiff Winnie Allen is the executrix of the estate of her mother, Anna Knight, the decedent. Mrs. Knight underwent surgery on April 27, 1979, at The Mobile Infirmary to alleviate vessel blockage following the insertion of a permanent pacemaker. The anesthetic was administered by defendant Dr. Lousteau. As already stated, the plaintiff claimed that Dr. Lousteau and The Mobile Infirmary were negligent and reckless in the post-operative care of her mother, in that the decedent pulled the respiratory equipment from her throat and nose, thereby causing respiratory difficulty, which ultimately resulted in her death. Defendants Lousteau and The Mobile Infirmary deny that any action taken by them was malpractice. They filed affidavits from the nursing staff and doctors at The Mobile Infirmary to support their contention that no genuine issue of fact was presented.

Summary judgments are rarely appropriate in negligence cases. For summary judgment to be appropriate, the defendants must make a strong showing from the facts that the plaintiff could not prevail under any set of discernible circumstances. Folmar v. Montgomery Fair, 293 Ala. 686, 309 So.2d 818 (1975), Raley v. Royal Insurance Co. Ltd., 386 So.2d 742 (Ala.1980). When there is a scintilla of evidence supporting the position of the party against whom summary judgment is sought, the motion should be denied. Coggin v. Starke Brothers Co., Inc., 391 So.2d 111 (Ala.1980). Plaintiff presented at least a scintilla of evidence by filing an affidavit of Dr. Linda E. Norton, a licensed physician with a specialty in forensic pathology. Dr. Norton stated:

"It is my opinion that between 11:10 a. m. and 11:30 a. m. on April 27, 1979, the decedent developed post-operative respiratory distress leading to hypoxia, hypotension, left cerebral infarction, and ultimately to death.

"It is my further medical opinion that immediate endotracheal intubation may well have prevented this death."

Aptly stated, the rule in Alabama regarding the propriety of summary judgment is:

"[...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Scott v. Abernathy Motorcycle Sales, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • March 17, 2021
    ...v. City of Decatur, 643 So.2d 543 (Ala.1993); see also, Vick v. H.S.I. Management, Inc., 507 So.2d 433 (Ala.1987); Allen v. Mobile Infirmary, 413 So.2d 1051 (Ala.1982); and Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., 293 Ala. 686, 309 So.2d 818 (1975). Here, it is undisputed between the parties that Def......
  • Bell v. Hart
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 25, 1987
    ...of evidence supporting the position of the party against whom summary judgment is sought, the motion should be denied. Allen v. Mobile Infirmary, 413 So.2d 1051 (Ala.1982); Parker v. King, 402 So.2d 877 432 So.2d at 1226-27. The Dimoff case also can be distinguished from this case. In Dimof......
  • Nelson By and Through Sanders v. Meadows
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • March 1, 1996
    ...v. City of Decatur, 643 So.2d 543 (Ala.1993). See also, Vick v. H.S.I. Management, Inc., 507 So.2d 433 (Ala.1987); Allen v. Mobile Infirmary, 413 So.2d 1051 (Ala.1982); and Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., 293 Ala. 686, 309 So.2d 818 I. Meadows Meadows maintains that the summary judgments wer......
  • Vick v. H.S.I. Management, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1987
    ...of Virginia, 454 So.2d 1377 (Ala.1984). Furthermore, a summary judgment is rarely appropriate in a negligence action. Allen v. Mobile Infirmary, 413 So.2d 1051 (Ala.1982); Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., 293 Ala. 686, 309 So.2d 818 (1975). Before we apply these summary judgment standards in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT