Colburn v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 28 September 1990 |
| Citation | 570 So.2d 652 |
| Parties | Scott W. COLBURN and Susan M. Colburn v. Dr. Barry WILSON. 89-168. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John Galvin, Birmingham, for appellants.
Charles A. Stakely of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, Montgomery, for appellee.
This is a medical negligence case. The plaintiffs, Scott and Susan Colburn, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County against the defendant, Dr. Barry Wilson, alleging that he committed acts of negligence during the course of his treatment of Mrs. Colburn in 1985 and 1986.
The Colburns appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Dr. Wilson. The issues before this Court are whether the Colburns stated a cause of action, and if so, whether the cause of action was time-barred by the statute of limitations.
During the summer of 1985, Susan Colburn became pregnant. In August of that year, she had her first appointment with Dr. Wilson. On August 27, 1985, Wilson performed a sonogram on Colburn in order to locate her baby's heartbeat.
On October 4, 1985, Mrs. Colburn made an unscheduled visit to Dr. Wilson's office because of unexplained bleeding. She was referred to Montgomery Radiology Associates, P.A. for another sonogram. That sonogram revealed that the bleeding was due to a "low placenta." It did not reveal any physical defects.
During Mrs. Colburn's regularly scheduled visit in November, Wilson's technician performed a sonogram. No photographic record of that sonogram was made, as there was no film in the equipment. Wilson was not present for the test and did not review any results of the test as there were none.
On February 3 or 4, 1986, Mrs. Colburn was again seen by Wilson for a routine examination. During that visit, another sonogram was made. There was evidence that the purpose of performing a sonogram during this visit was to take a souvenir picture of the baby for Mrs. Colburn and her husband. This test revealed the presence of certain physical defects. Following further tests at Montgomery Radiology, the baby was diagnosed as having hydrocephalus and possibly spina bifida.
At the Colburns' request, Dr. Wilson attempted to locate a facility that would perform an abortion. Because Mrs. Colburn was in her 31st week of pregnancy, Dr. Wilson was unable to arrange to have the pregnancy terminated.
Following the diagnosis and the unsuccessful attempts to arrange for a termination of the pregnancy, the Colburns made several visits to Birmingham for treatment and counseling. Mrs. Colburn's last visit to Dr. Wilson was on March 26, 1986, and Ryan Colburn was born on March 31, 1986.
In their suit, the Colburns contend that the November sonogram was performed negligently. They argue that that negligence prevented an early detection of the physical defects and deprived them of the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy by a legal abortion.
For the purpose of discussing whether this suit was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the Court will assume, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keel v. Banach
...breach of duty, proximate cause, and damage. We recognized a case of action for wrongful pregnancy in Boone. Third, in Colburn v. Wilson, 570 So.2d 652 (Ala.1990), the parents made a wrongful birth claim against a physician for failing to detect gross abnormalities by ultrasound. The facts ......
-
Tucker v. Tombigbee Healthcare Auth. (Ex parte Hodge)
...action accrues.... A cause of action accrues when the act complained of results in injury to the plaintiff.” ’ (quoting Colburn v. Wilson, 570 So.2d 652, 654 (Ala.1990) )); Ramey v. Guyton, 394 So.2d 2, 4 (Ala.1981) (noting that when the negligent act and the resultant harm do not coincide,......
-
McBride v. J.L. Bedsole/Rotary Rehab. Hosp. & Mobile Infirmary Ass'n) (Ex parte Mobile Infirmary Ass'n)
...the act complained of results in legal injury to the plaintiff. Grabert v. Lightfoot, 571 So. 2d 293, 294 (Ala. 1990) ; Colburn v. Wilson, 570 So. 2d 652, 654 (Ala. 1990). The statutory limitations period begins to run whether or not the full amount of damages is apparent at the time of the......
-
Barton v. American Red Cross
...which is defined by the Alabama courts as the date "when the act complained of results in injury to the plaintiff." Colburn v. Wilson, 570 So.2d 652, 654 (Ala.1990). The Bartons correctly point out that in Ramey v. Guyton, 394 So.2d 2, 4 (Ala.1980), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the d......