Ex parte McKinney
| Decision Date | 20 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1200621 |
| Parties | Ex parte Dahlia McKinney, M.D. v. Baptist Health System, Inc., et al. In re: Antwon L. White, as personal representative for the Estate of Paydro White (deceased) |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Ex parte Dahlia McKinney, M.D.
In re: Antwon L. White, as personal representative for the Estate of Paydro White (deceased)
v.
Baptist Health System, Inc., et al.
No. 1200621
Supreme Court of Alabama
May 20, 2022
(Jefferson Circuit Court, CV-16-900003)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
SHAW, Justice
Dahlia McKinney, M.D., a defendant in the wrongful-
death/medical-negligence action pending below, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate an order compelling Dr. McKinney, ostensibly under Alabama's discovery rules, to alter the contents of a registered death certificate she prepared in connection with the death of Paydro White ("Paydro"). We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Facts and Procedural History
On December 31, 2013, Paydro sought medical treatment at the emergency department of Princeton Baptist Medical Center ("Princeton"), where he was diagnosed with possible pneumonia; he was discharged on that same date.
The following afternoon, Paydro returned to Princeton's emergency department seeking follow-up care; he was formally admitted for treatment by the emergency physician on duty at that time. Later that evening, after Dr. McKinney began her evening shift at Princeton, Paydro become unresponsive. Although he was initially successfully resuscitated, Paydro later died in the early morning hours of January 2, 2014.
Dr. McKinney, who completed and signed Paydro's death certificate, identified the contributing causes of Paydro's death as "Pulseless electrical activity" due to "Acute Myocardial Infarction."[1]Subsequent postmortem examinations and the autopsy of Paydro's body, however, revealed that "the most likely cause of... death [was] pulmonary Thromboembolism" -- a final diagnosis with which Dr. McKinney's later deposition testimony indicated she agreed.
Dorothy White ("Dorothy"), Paydro's mother, subsequently obtained letters of administration naming her the personal representative of Paydro's estate. In that capacity, Dorothy sued, in the Jefferson Circuit Court, numerous defendants allegedly connected with Paydro's medical treatment, including Dr. McKinney. In essence, Dorothy's complaint alleged claims of "Medical Malpractice-Wrongful Death," pursuant to the Alabama Medical Liability Act, [2] based on her contention that Paydro's death had been caused by the defendants' purported failure to timely diagnose and treat the pulmonary thromboembolism that ultimately caused Paydro's death.[3] Dorothy later
died, and Antwon L. White ("White") succeeded Dorothy as personal representative of Paydro's estate.
In response to White's claims, Dr. McKinney, who had provided no medical treatment to Paydro other than in connection with emergency resuscitation attempts, informally requested her voluntary dismissal as a defendant. In an email communication to Dr. McKinney's counsel, White's counsel indicated that a decision on that request would be aided by Dr. McKinney's voluntary amendment of the original cause of death indicated on Paydro's death certificate to identify his cause of death as a pulmonary thromboembolism.
Thereafter, White, specifically citing Rule 37, Ala. R. Civ. P., [4] filed
in the trial court a motion seeking an order
"compelling ... [Dr.] McKinney ... to amend and correct the medical certification portion of Paydro['s] death certificate in Line 46 Part I and Line 47 Part II to show that the correct cause of death is Pulmonary Thromboembolism/Deep Venous Thrombosis-DVT, not Pulseless electrical activity, Myocardial Infarction or Pneumonia as currently listed in Paydro White's death certificate."
In support of that request, White alleged that Dr. McKinney had allegedly "promised" during her deposition and was, as the original certifying physician, also allegedly "required by law" to amend Paydro's death certificate as described but had repeatedly refused to do so despite repeated requests from White's counsel.
Among other exhibits, White attached as support for the motion the affidavit of Adel Shaker, M.D., a forensic pathologist/medical examiner,
who attested that, based on his postmortem examination of Paydro's body, he concurred with the findings of an initial autopsy performed at Princeton that concluded that the most likely cause of Paydro's death was a pulmonary thromboembolism. Also according to Dr. Shaker's affidavit testimony, he had unsuccessfully attempted to amend Paydro's death certificate as originally completed by Dr. McKinney to reflect the correct cause of death, but he had been informed by the Alabama Department of Vital Statistics that "only the medical certifier, [Dr. McKinney, ] who signed the death certificate may make corrections/changes to cause of death or other changes in the medical certification section of Pay drops] ... death certificate." White's motion was further supported by Dr. McKinney's deposition testimony agreeing with the autopsy findings that Paydro's death most likely resulted from a pulmonary thromboembolism.
Dr. McKinney opposed White's motion. Specifically, she alleged that the motion seeking an order compelling the amendment of Paydro's death certificate was not filed in response to Dr. McKinney's failure to appropriately respond to a pending discovery request under either Rule
33 or Rule 34, Ala. R. Civ. P., and was, thus, "improper and unfounded in ... Rule 37." She instead deemed White's request both "an improper discovery motion and outside of [the trial court's] discretion ...." Dr. McKinney further argued that provisions of the Alabama Administrative Code cited in support of the motion "do[| not require Dr. McKinney to alter the death certificate, but merely provide0 a method for doing so."
Dr. McKinney's response further explained her refusal to alter the death certificate to secure her dismissal from the action as follows:
"Counsel for [Dr. McKinney] found this request to be improper and therefore did not respond to it, since this implicated an improper quid pro quo for her dismissal from this suit. [Dr. McKinney] cannot change a public record to secure her dismissal from this suit, and she should not be asked to do so."
Finally, Dr. McKinney disputed that she had ever "promised" to amend the death certificate.
Following further filings and a hearing, the trial court, on May 21, 2021, entered an order granting White's motion to compel. Specifically, in that order, the trial court, citing Dr. McKinney's acknowledgment that the original cause of death she had identified was preliminary and her
agreement with the findings of the subsequent postmortem examinations and relying on the established administrative procedures for amending a registered death certificate, [5] ordered "that Dr. McKinney file required documents with [the] Office of Vital statistics within ten (10) days to amend or correct Paydro['s] ... death certificate in accordance with her deposition testimony that the probable cause of death is Pulmonary Thromboembolism." (Emphasis omitted.)
In response, Dr. McKinney filed a mandamus petition. This Court ordered answers and briefs. At Dr. McKinney's request, the trial court stayed execution of its order compelling amendment of Paydro's death certificate pending the outcome of the present petition.
Standard of Review
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and will be granted only where there is '(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked
jurisdiction of the court.' Ex parte Alfab, Inc., 586 So.2d 889, 891 (Ala. 1991). This Court will not issue the writ of mandamus where the petitioner has '"full and adequate relief' by appeal. State v. Cobb, 288 Ala. 675, 678, 264 So.2d 523, 526 (1972) (quoting State v. Williams, 69 Ala. 311, 316 (1881)).
"Discovery matters are within the trial court's sound discretion, and this Court will not reverse a trial court's ruling on a discovery issue unless the trial court has clearly exceeded its discretion. Home Ins. Co. v. Rice, 585 So.2d 859, 862 (Ala. 1991). Accordingly, mandamus will issue to reverse a trial court's ruling on a discovery issue only (1) where there is a showing that the trial court clearly exceeded its discretion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial