Crutcher v. Williams

• Decision Date: 14 March 2008
• Docket Number: 1050893.
• Citation: 12 So.3d 631
• Parties: Colie E. CRUTCHER, Jr., M.D. v. Iola WILLIAMS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

12 So.3d 631

Colie E. CRUTCHER, Jr., M.D. v. Iola WILLIAMS.

1050893.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 14, 2008.

Opinion on Return to Remand May 30, 2008.

Opinion on Return to Second Remand January 9, 2009.

Larry W. Harper, Lee T. Clanton, and W. Perry Webb of Porterfield, Harper, Mills & Motlow, P.A., Birmingham, for appellant.

Rhonda Marie, Helena, for appellee.

COBB, Chief Justice.

The dispositive issue on this appeal is whether the order appealed from was a final judgment. We hold that it was not, and we remand the case.

Facts

On June 23, 2000, Iola Williams filed a medical-malpractice action against Colie E. Crutcher, Jr., M.D., and the City of York Healthcare Authority d/b/a Hill Hospital ("Hill Hospital"). Williams's action arose out of her visit to the Hill Hospital emergency room in June 1998, during which she was treated by Dr. Crutcher. Williams alleged against Dr. Crutcher claims of medical negligence and the tort of outrage and against Hill Hospital claims of medical negligence, the tort of outrage, negligence, and negligent hiring and supervision of Dr. Crutcher and other Hill Hospital staff.

On July 26, 2004, Hill Hospital filed the following cross-claim, seeking indemnity from Dr. Crutcher in the event it was found liable:

"In the event Hill Hospital is found liable predicated upon the acts and/or omissions of [Dr.] Crutcher, while allegedly acting as its agent, Hill Hospital is entitled to common law indemnity for [Dr.] Crutcher's acts and/or omissions."

On September 26, 2005, the case went to trial. At the close of her case, Williams voluntarily agreed to dismiss her tort-of-outrage claim and her negligent-training-and-supervision claim to the extent it alleged negligent training and supervision of a hospital employee named Thelma Love. Before submitting the case to the jury, the trial court dismissed all Williams's claims "except negligence." The trial court instructed the jury on Williams's medical-negligence claims against Dr. Crutcher and Hill Hospital. The trial court then gave the following instruction with regard to Hill Hospital's indemnification cross-claim:

"Last point I want to make, you heard Mr. Chestnut [Williams's attorney] talking about a cross-claim where Hill Hospital filed a suit against Dr. Crutcher. That is in the case, but you don't need to worry about it at this point. We'll deal with that depending on your verdict. That is in the lawsuit but you don't need to worry about it at this time."

The jury returned a verdict for Williams against both Dr. Crutcher and Hill Hospital in the amount of $145,000. After the jury returned its verdict, the trial court submitted written questions to the jury to determine whether the jury found that Dr. Crutcher was acting as an agent of Hill Hospital at the time he treated Williams and, if so, whether the jury's award against Hill Hospital was based solely on the actions of Dr. Crutcher in his capacity as an agent of Hill Hospital. In response to the written questions, the jury stated that it found that Dr. Crutcher was acting as an agent, servant, or employee of Hill Hospital. The jury further stated that its verdict against Hill Hospital was "[d]ue to Hill Hospital's own acts of negligence combined with acts of negligence of Dr. Crutcher."

On October 24, 2005, the trial court entered an order stating that "judgment is rendered" in favor of Williams on her claims against Dr. Crutcher and Hill Hospital in the amount of $145,000.¹ The trial court's order did not address Hill Hospital's indemnity cross-claim against Dr. Crutcher. Neither did it direct the entry of a final judgment as to Williams's claims against Dr. Crutcher and Hill Hospital in accordance with the provision in Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., for certifying as final a judgment disposing of fewer than all claims in an action.

The trial court denied the postjudgment motions filed by Dr. Crutcher and Hill Hospital. On March 7, 2006, Dr. Crutcher filed a notice of appeal to this Court. On March 21, 2006, Hill Hospital filed a notice of appeal to this Court. Subsequently, Williams and Hill Hospital filed a joint motion to dismiss Hill Hospital's appeal on the ground that they had reached a settlement. This Court granted the motion and dismissed Hill Hospital's appeal on July 11, 2006.

Standard of Review

This Court is not limited by the parties' jurisdictional arguments; we are obligated to look beyond those arguments and to dismiss an appeal ex mero motu if, for any reason, jurisdiction does not exist. Reynolds v. Colonial Bank, 874 So.2d 497, 503 (Ala.2003) ("`[I]f there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent.'" (quoting Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256, 128 So. 362, 364 (1930) (emphasis added))); Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) ("Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu." (citing City of Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 688, 127 So.2d 606, 608 (1958))); Payne v. Department of Indus. Relations, 423 So.2d 231 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); and Bibb v. Boyd, 417 So.2d 206, 208 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) ("[I]n any event, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is not waivable and may be raised ex mero motu by either a trial court or by an appellate court" (citing 5 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1393)). A court is obligated to vigilantly protect against deciding cases over which it has no jurisdiction because "[i]t would amount to usurpation and oppression for a court to interfere in a matter over which it has no jurisdiction, and its pronouncements in respect thereto would be without force, and its decrees and judgments would be wholly void. This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself." Wilkinson, 221 Ala. at 256, 128 So. at 364.

However, when the parties have not provided sufficient legal or factual justification for this Court's jurisdiction, this Court is not obligated to embark on its own expedition beyond the parties' arguments in pursuit of a reason to exercise jurisdiction. The burden of establishing the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking that jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007) (setting forth the plaintiff's burden of demonstrating standing to bring an action, an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction); Ex parte Haynes Downard Andra & Jones, LLP, 924 So.2d 687, 691 (Ala.2005) (stating that the party seeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden of showing that the party has properly invoked the court's jurisdiction); Ex parte Ray-El, 911 So.2d 1100, 1104 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (placing the burden to "`justify the jurisdiction of this court'" on the person bringing a habeas petition as a "next friend" (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 164, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990))); cf. Bush v. Laggo Props., L.L.C., 784 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) ("Once a party challenges the trial court's jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] the burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the plaintiff." (citing Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507 (5th Cir.1980))).

"`The question whether an order appealed from is final is jurisdictional ....'" Hinson v. Hinson, 745 So.2d 280, 281 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting Powell v. Powell, 718 So.2d 80, 82 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998)). "It is a well established rule that, with limited exceptions, an appeal will lie only from a final judgment which determines the issues before the court and ascertains and declares the rights of the parties involved." Taylor v. Taylor, 398 So.2d 267, 269 (Ala.1981). In the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court has no power to consider the merits of an appeal. See Ex parte V.S., 918 So.2d 908, 912 (Ala.2005) (quoting Flannigan v. Jordan, 871 So.2d 767, 768 (Ala.2003)).

Analysis

Dr. Crutcher recognizes that the judgment against him may not be a final judgment and, if it is not, that this Court should, therefore, remand the action to the Sumter Circuit Court for a determination as to whether that court chooses to certify the order as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., and then accept the appeal as filed.²

Williams, however, argues that the judgment in her favor is final. According to Williams, the parties stipulated at trial that Hill Hospital's cross-claim against Dr. Crutcher would survive only if the jury found Hill Hospital liable solely on the basis of Dr. Crutcher's negligence. Thus, Williams contends, the cross-claim is now moot because the jury did not find Hill Hospital liable solely on the basis of Dr. Crutcher's negligence; it found liability based on "Hill Hospital's own acts of negligence." Williams concludes that the judgment is final because "there [is] no further issue to be decided and no other verdict on which to render judgment by the Court." Williams's brief, p. 18.

Williams's failure to comply with Rule 28, Ala. R.App. P., precludes consideration of her argument that the order on appeal is a final judgment.³ Rule 28 requires the parties to reference "the appropriate page numbers of the record on appeal." Rule 28(g). Williams's citation to the record does not direct this Court to the stipulation she describes. The record, in the context of Williams's arguments, does not contain such a stipulation. This Court will not consider evidence or stipulations that are outside the record. Etherton v. City of Homewood, 700 So.2d 1374, 1378 (Ala.1997).

Further, Williams cites no legal authority to support her theory that a claim terminates upon the happening of an event that causes the claim to be moot, rather than upon the entry of an order disposing of the claim. Without a record of the facts on which Williams's argument rests, and in the absence of any citation to legal authority, this Court has no...