Benefield v. F. Hood Craddock Clinic

• Decision Date: 07 September 1984
• Parties: Jacqueline S. BENEFIELD v. F. HOOD CRADDOCK CLINIC, et al. 82-1133.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 52

456 So.2d 52

Jacqueline S. BENEFIELD v. F. HOOD CRADDOCK CLINIC, et al.

82-1133.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 7, 1984.

Frank O. Hanson, Jr., of Emond & Vines, Birmingham, for appellant.

Carol A. Smith of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for appellees F. Hood Craddock Clinic, Dr. J.S. Bailey and Dr. W.R. Gammon.

Edward O. Conerly of McDaniel, Hall, Parsons, Conerly, Scott & Lusk, Birmingham, for appellee Sylacauga Hosp.

ALMON, Justice.

This is a case in which a patient sued her doctors, the hospital, and others, for fraudulently misrepresenting and concealing the true cause of complications she suffered while on the operating table. Defendants argued that the suit was a medical malpractice action and barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and granted defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiff contends that she is suing for damages arising from the fraud, not the medical treatment, and that she discovered the fraud less than a year before bringing the action.

Jacqueline S. Benefield underwent surgery at Sylacauga Hospital on January 11, 1972. According to the allegations of her complaint, she suffered injury because of improper administration of anesthesia or improper operation of the anesthesia machine. She alleged that her doctors knew that the anesthesia procedure was the cause of her injury but intentionally and fraudulently represented to her that her injuries "were caused by naturally occurring medical or biological problems unrelated to her medical care."

The complaint recited as damages that Benefield relied on the fraudulent misrepresentations and "has for the past ten years declined medical treatment, declined to have children and undergone severe emotional trauma and fear of death as a result." The complaint also alleged that Benefield did not discover the fraud until November 19, 1981, and could not have discovered the fraud earlier. Benefield filed her complaint on May 19, 1982.

On January 28, 1983, Benefield filed an amendment to her complaint, adding the following paragraph:

"This claim and cause of action of the plaintiff is brought pursuant to § 6-2-3 of the Code of Alabama as a fraud action and not as a malpractice action pursuant to § 6-5-482. It is plaintiff's claim that the defendants fraudulently misrepresented to her that she had a biological or medical condition which she did not, in fact, have. In reliance upon said misrepresentations, the plaintiff believed that she did have such a condition and in reliance thereon determined not to have children, declined or refused various forms of medical care and has since the date of said fraud lived in fear of impending loss of life from said non-existent medical condition, resulting in great mental anguish and suffering. All of said injuries resulted from fraudulent misrepresentations, not from the underlying medical care that occurred prior to the defendants' misrepresentations. Plaintiff does not claim that the alleged injuries were caused by the underlying medical care."

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint as last amended, chiefly on the ground that the issues had been decided by the recent case of Horn v. Citizens Hospital, 425 So.2d 1065 (Ala.1982). The motions cited Horn for the assertions "that [an action for] fraudulent concealment against a doctor is governed by the Medical Liability Act Statute of...