Guthrie v. Bio-Medical Laboratories, Inc.
Citation | 442 So.2d 92 |
Decision Date | 05 December 1983 |
Docket Number | BIO-MEDICAL |
Parties | Andrea GUTHRIE, a minor, etc., et al. v.LABORATORIES, INC., et al. Ex parte Andrea GUTHRIE. (In re: Andrea GUTHRIE, et al. v.LABORATORIES, Drs. Ray, Birdsong and O'Rear, et al.) 82-569, 82-905. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Michael A. Worel of Emond & Vines, Birmingham, for appellants and petitioners.
Robert D. Norman and Michael K. Wright of Norman, Fitzpatrick & Wood, Birmingham, for Bio-Medical Laboratories.
W. Stancil Starnes and Randal H. Sellers of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for Drs. Ray, Birdsong and O'Rear.
Gary and Susan Guthrie brought this action individually and on behalf of their minor daughter, Andrea, against Bio-Medical Laboratories, Inc., Baptist Medical Centers, People's Hospital, Walker County Medical Center, Dr. William D. Birdsong, Dr. Edgar Allen O'Rear, Jr., Dr. Robert Elbert Ray, Dr. Gaines Keith, and Dr. David Wirtschafter. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of Bio-Medical and made it final in accordance with ARCP 54(b). It then ordered a severance of the action against Doctors Birdsong, Ray, and O'Rear from the action against the remainder of the defendants. Since Birdsong, Ray, and O'Rear are residents of Walker County, the court then transferred the severed action to the Circuit Court of Walker County. The plaintiffs appealed from the summary judgment and petitioned for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order severing and transferring the action against Birdsong, Ray, and O'Rear.
The complaint alleged that on or about April 2, 1974, Dr. Keith withdrew a specimen of Mrs. Guthrie's blood and sent it to Bio-Medical Laboratories for a prenatal analysis. Bio-Medical reported that Mrs. Guthrie's blood type was A-positive when, in fact, it was A-negative. When Mrs. Guthrie subsequently became pregnant, an Rh incompatability occurred between Mrs. Guthrie and her unborn child. Andrea was born on September 30, 1978, with brain damage allegedly attributable to the Rh incompatability. The plaintiffs claimed that if Bio-Medical had accurately typed Mrs. Guthrie's blood her physician could have taken steps before she became pregnant to prevent the incompatability.
Doctors Birdsong, Ray, and O'Rear treated Mrs. Guthrie after she became pregnant.
They performed their own blood testing and presumably were aware of the Rh incompatability. They were unaware of, and in no way relied on, Bio-Medical's test. The plaintiffs alleged that Birdsong, Ray, and O'Rear failed to timely and properly treat Andrea and that, as a proximate result, she suffered the injuries complained of.
As grounds for its motion Bio-Medical argued that the complaint failed to state a claim against it and that the statute of limitations had expired. In support of its motion, it filed an affidavit by an immunohematology supervisor who was employed by the defendant on the date in question. The affidavit states, inter alia, that:
In response to Bio-Medical's affidavit, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit by a physician who is the supervisor of another laboratory which does blood typing; that affidavit stated, inter alia:
Summary judgments are rarely appropriate in negligence actions. Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., 293 Ala. 686, 691, 309 So.2d 818, 822 (1975). Extreme caution is especially appropriate when reviewing cases such as the one at bar where a summary judgment was granted before full discovery was completed by the parties.
This case bears a great similarity to, and is governed by, our opinion in Scott v. Mendoza, 428 So.2d 8 (Ala.1982) In Scott, the defendant, a physician who had treated the plaintiff, alleged by affidavit that he had exercised the standard of care required of him under the circumstances. An affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff by a physician treating him subsequently stated that, in the opinion of the affiant, the injuries complained of could have had any one of three causes. Even though only one of Similarly, in the case at bar, the defendant's affidavit alleged that in this case, as in all others, it exercised due care in typing the blood. The plaintiffs' expert's affidavit to the effect that the incorrect typing could have been the result of the failure of Bio-Medical to either possess or use the degree of care ordinarily possessed by laboratories which perform blood typing was sufficient to raise a question of fact. We recognize the possibility that the error may have been attributable to the person or persons who handled the specimen before it reached Bio-Medical. Such questions of fact are not, however, appropriate for resolution by summary judgment. Scott, supra at 11.
the three possible causes enumerated in the affidavit was attributable to the defendant, we ruled that the possibility that the defendant was responsible was sufficient to raise an issue of fact.
The defendant also raised the statute of limitations as a defense. The Alabama Medical Liability Act provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Panell
...prescription was written, which act produced no concurrent injury to the Plaintiff." Ramey was followed in Guthrie v. Bio-Medical Laboratories, Inc., 442 So.2d 92, 95 (Ala.1983). When the very similar language of § 6-5-574 was adopted in 1988, the construction of the language in § 6-5-482(a......
-
Adams v. American Home Prods. Corp., Civ.A. 00-D-1481-N.
...869608 at *5-6, ___ So.2d at ___ - ___ (Ala.2000); Mobile Infirmary v. Delchamps, 642 So.2d 954, 958 (Ala.1994); Guthrie v. Bio-Medical Labs., Inc., 442 So.2d 92, 95 (Ala.1983); Ramey v. Guyton, 394 So.2d 2, 4 Justice Cook's concurrence, which suggested that Panell may have retroactively an......
-
Brooks v. Paulk & Cope, Inc.
...her child was born, and physicians who treated and performed blood testing of the mother while she was pregnant. Guthrie v. Bio-Medical Laboratories, 442 So.2d 92 (Ala. 1983). The same kind of claim was presented in the out-of-circuit district court case cited by the Plaintiffs. See Garcia ......
-
Tobiassen v. Sawyer
...So.2d 2 (Ala.1980). A cause of action accrues when the act complained of results in injury to the plaintiff. Guthrie v. Bio-Medical Laboratories, Inc., 442 So.2d 92 (Ala. 1983).' "Grabert contends that the statutory limitations period did not begin to run until the date of the second operat......