Ex parte Cranman

Decision Date16 June 2000
PartiesEx parte Paul J. CRANMAN, as executor of the estate of Matthew Cranman, deceased. (In re Paul J. Cranman, as executor of the estate of Matthew Cranman, deceased v. David Maxwell, M.D., et al.)
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Marion F. Walker, Birmingham, for petitioner.

Michael A. Florie and Joseph S. Miller of Starnes & Atchison, L.L.P., Birmingham, for respondents Dr. David Maxwell, Dr. Patricia A. Hubbs, Dr. John Galaznik, and Dr. Joe Bethany (brief on 2d application for rehearing filed by W. Stancil Starnes, Michael A. Florie, and J. Will Axon, Jr., of Starnes & Atchison, L.L.P., Birmingham).

David G. Wirtes, Jr., of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder & Brown, L.L.C.; and S. Greg Burge of Heninger, Burge, Vargo & Davis, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Trial Lawyers Ass'n, in support of the plaintiffs application for rehearing.

On Application for Rehearing

LYONS, Justice.

The opinion of November 24, 1999, is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.

Paul J. Cranman, as executor of the estate of his son Matthew Cranman, deceased, was the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action. He appealed from summary judgments entered in favor of the defendants David Maxwell, M.D.; Patricia A. Hubbs, M.D.; John Galaznik, M.D.; and Joe Bethany, M.D. (hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as "the physicians"). The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the physicians were entitled to discretionary-function immunity. Cranman v. Maxwell, 792 So.2d 386 (Ala.Civ.App.1998). We granted Paul Cranman's petition for certiorari review, and we reverse.

I. Facts

Matthew Cranman was a student at the University of Alabama in 1994. On September 12, 1994, he went to the Russell Student Health Center of the University of Alabama ("the student health center"), complaining of swelling and pressure in the area of his left testicle. Dr. Maxwell examined him, diagnosed epididymitis (an inflammation of the sperm-collecting tubes near the testicles), and prescribed antibiotics and sitz baths. Matthew returned on October 11, 1994, complaining of low-back pain. Dr. Galaznik examined him, diagnosed muscle pain, and prescribed medication. On November 7, 1994, Matthew again went to the student health center, reporting that he had a possible prostate infection. Dr. Maxwell saw him and determined that he had a slightly tender mass effect in the left epididymis; however, a testicular examination was negative. Dr. Maxwell prescribed more antibiotics and instructed Matthew to return in two weeks. Matthew returned on November 29, 1994, reporting mild discomfort in his left testicle. Dr. Bethany examined him, noted a slight enlargement of the testicle, changed his medication, and recommended that he consult a urologist in his hometown during the semester break.

Matthew did not visit the student health center again until August 23, 1995. At that time he complained of a stabbing, burning pain in his left flank. Dr. Maxwell examined him, diagnosed left paralumbar pain, and prescribed medication and physical therapy. Two days later, when Matthew reported for physical therapy, he was examined by Dr. Hubbs, who noted that he was tender along the costal margin, in his left side, and in his flank. Dr. Hubbs thought Matthew had suffered a strain of the chest muscles; she prescribed additional medication, recommended that he try heat or ice, and instructed him to return in a week. When Matthew returned six days later, he reported that he was feeling better, and Dr. Hubbs gave him additional medication. On October 11, 1995, Matthew reported to the student health center with back pain and a flareup of his epididymitis. Dr. Hubbs noted that he had the symptoms of a hydrocele and that he had seen a urologist. She examined him, diagnosed recurrent epididymitis and a back strain, prescribed pain and antibiotic medication and back exercises, and instructed him to return in two weeks if he did not improve. On November 9, 1995, Matthew went to the student health center complaining of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Dr. Maxwell examined him, but Matthew reported no back or testicular pain. On November 17, 1995, Matthew returned, with recurring back pain, and reported that he had been under stress and had not slept for a week. Dr. Hubbs examined him and found that he was experiencing shoulder pain and tightness different from the earlier back pain. She diagnosed upper back and neck strain, prescribed heat and medication, and referred him to physical therapy.

In December 1995, Matthew was diagnosed with testicular cancer. Cancerous cells were found in his lungs and behind his kidneys. His left testicle was surgically removed, and he underwent chemotherapy, radiation, and other cancer treatments.

II. Procedural History

In September 1996, Matthew sued Drs. Maxwell, Hubbs, and Galaznik; the student health center; and others. He alleged that the physicians had negligently or wantonly breached the applicable standard of care in treating him, thereby breaching an implied contract to render medical treatment. In their answer, the physicians asserted the defense of immunity because, they claimed, they were engaged in a discretionary function within the scope of their authority as employees of the University of Alabama. They then moved for a summary judgment on the basis of immunity. Matthew then amended his complaint to add Dr. Bethany as a defendant and to dismiss the student health center.

Matthew Cranman died on November 6, 1997.1 On December 31, 1997, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Drs. Maxwell, Hubbs, and Galaznik, concluding that they were protected from liability by discretionary-function immunity. On January 8, 1998, Paul Cranman, Matthew's father and executor, was substituted as a plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 25(a), Ala. R. Civ. P. On January 20, 1998, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Dr. Bethany, based upon immunity. The trial court certified the summary judgments as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Paul Cranman appealed to this Court, which transferred the case to the Court of Civil Appeals, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975. In affirming the summary judgments, the Court of Civil Appeals stated, in pertinent part:

"As Matthew did in the trial court, the executor principally argues on appeal that precedents from other states rejecting immunity for state-employed physicians are persuasive and should be followed by Alabama courts. The trial court, while stating that `[Matthew] made a very compelling argument that [the state physicians] should not be entitled to discretionary function immunity because the character of the discretion which they exercised was medical and not governmental,' concluded that `under the current law of the State of Alabama a State-employed physician is entitled to immunity whether he's exercising "medical discretion" or "governmental discretion."' We agree with the trial court that no Alabama opinion has made any distinction, for purposes of tort liability, among the various forms of discretion that may be afforded to public servants in this state. Indeed, Kassen v. Hatley, 887 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.1994), one of the authorities upon which the executor principally relies, describes Alabama as a state in which government medical personnel are immune from tort liability arising from the exercise of discretion in both governmental and medical decisions. 887 S.W.2d at 11 (citing Smith I [Smith v. Arnold, 564 So.2d 873 (Ala. 1990])).
". . . .
"In this case, the state physicians were employed to provide health care to the student population at a state university. Their diagnoses of Matthew's condition and their recommendations as to treatment of that condition called for no less `professional judgment and discretion' than those made by the state-employed physicians in Barnes [v. Dale, 530 So.2d 770 (Ala.1988)], Smith I, and Harper [v. Gremmel, 703 So.2d 346 (Ala. 1997)], or the state-employed trainer in Lennon [v. Petersen, 624 So.2d 171 (Ala. 1993)], and it follows that they are entitled to the same discretionary function immunity that was afforded to the defendants in those cases. Thus, the trial court correctly entered the summary judgment in favor of the state physicians, and we affirm that judgment."

Cranman v. Maxwell, 792 So.2d at 391-92.

Paul Cranman petitioned this Court for certiorari review of the Court of Civil Appeals' decision. He frames the issue presented as "whether the physicians in the rendition of purely medical treatment to an individual are performing a discretionary act as contemplated by caselaw and are legally entitled to officer-agent immunity under the Constitution for the State of Alabama, Art. I, Section 14." The Court granted his petition and consolidated this case with three other cases for oral argument. All of the cases question the continuing validity of the doctrine of immunity for health-care providers in the State service. See Wells v. Storey, 792 So.2d 1034 (Ala.1999); Ex parte Rizk, [Ms. 1970493, Nov.24, 1999] (reh'g pending);2 Wimpee v. Stella, [Ms. 1971774, Nov. 24, 1999] (reh'g pending).3

III. Development of the Doctrine of Immunity

We today reexamine the doctrine of immunity of officers, agents, and employees of the State for torts committed in the course of their performance of their duties.4

We begin our discussion with a review of the doctrine of immunity where the issue arises in the context of the immunity available to the State in an action against the State ("State immunity") as opposed to the immunity available to individual defendants sued for actions taken on behalf of the State ("State-agent immunity").5 In Hutchinson v. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama, 288 Ala. 20, 256 So.2d 281 (1971), this Court traced the history of State immunity in Alabama, using Copeland and Screws, Governmental...

To continue reading

Request your trial
494 cases
  • EX PARTE ALABAMA DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVICES
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 10, 2003
    ...because, he says, he "was clearly engaged in discretionary functions at the time of the alleged acts." Petition, p. 19. "Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000), recounts the evolution of State-agent immunity," Ex parte Rizk, 791 So.2d 911, 913 (Ala.2000), and restates the law on that "W......
  • Rogers v. City of Selma
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • April 8, 2016
    ...on, the Alabama Supreme Court explained that “ ‘[t]he restatement of State-agent immunity as set out by this court in Ex parte Cranman, [792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000) ], governs the determination of whether a peace officer is entitled to immunity under § 6–5–338(a).’ ” Ex parte City of Midfield,......
  • Fleming v. Dowdell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • March 29, 2005
    ...on the basis of State-agent immunity. (Doc. No. 58 at 2, 11.) Pointing to the exceptions to Stateagent immunity outlined in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000), Fleming contends that the BOPP Defendants cannot seek the shelter of State-agent immunity because they acted beyond legal a......
  • J.W. v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • September 30, 2015
    ...the defendant S.R.O.s fall into one of the exceptions to state-agent immunity. See Midfield, 161 So.3d at 1163(citing Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392, 405 (Ala.2000)). The only potential exception in this case provides that " 'a State agent shall not be immune from civil liability in his or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Interpreting the Alabama Constitution
    • United States
    • Alabama State Bar Alabama Lawyer No. 71-4, July 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...are legislative, to one; those which are executive, to another; and those which are judicial, to another.").3. E.g., Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392, 398 (Ala. 2000) (discussing governmental immunity as being "almost invincible, made so by the people through their Constitution") (internal ......
  • Theobald v. University of Cincinnati - reforming medical malpractice in Ohio: a survey of state laws and policy impacts.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 20 No. 1, March 2006
    • March 22, 2006
    ...473 S.E.2d 1, 3 (N.C. 1996). (135) Jackson v. Wilson, 581 S.W.2d 39, 42-3 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). (136) Id. See also Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392, 406 (Ala. 2000); Mussemann v. Villarreal, 178 S.W.3d 319, 320-23 (Tex. App. (137) See Urquhart v. Univ. Health Sys. of E. Carolina, Inc., 566 S......
  • How to Read a Vote Line of the Alabama Supreme Court
    • United States
    • Alabama State Bar Alabama Lawyer No. 84-3, May 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...of the court in a majority opinion. See, e.g., Ex parte Wood, 852 So. 2d 705, 709 n.3 (Ala. 2002) (noting that Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 (Ala. 2000), was a plurality opinion but that its rationale was later expressly adopted by a majority of the court in Ex parte Butts, 775 So. 2d 17......

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