Harris v. Hicks
| Decision Date | 19 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1200717 |
| Parties | Ashley Page Harris v. Todd L. Hicks, Susan P. McMullan, Jeremy D. Taylor, Gary C. Hammond, Peter M. Tofani, Katie O. Woodfin, Dana Lambert, and Jacqueline Moss |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Ashley Page Harris
v.
Todd L. Hicks, Susan P. McMullan, Jeremy D. Taylor, Gary C. Hammond, Peter M. Tofani, Katie O. Woodfin, Dana Lambert, and Jacqueline Moss
No. 1200717
Supreme Court of Alabama
August 19, 2022
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-18-901503)
SELLERS, JUSTICE [1]
Ashley Page Harris appeals from the dismissal of her claims against several people involved with the nurse anesthesia program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Nursing School ("the nursing school"). According to Harris's complaint, she was a student at the nursing school until she was dismissed in August 2016.
Harris sued in the Montgomery Circuit Court three nurses at Baptist South Hospital ("the hospital") in Montgomery who were tasked with providing the nursing school with evaluations of Harris's clinical work at the hospital. She also sued a supervising nurse at the hospital who relayed those evaluations to the nursing school. Finally, she sued four educators and administrators at the nursing school who were involved in the process that resulted in Harris's dismissal from the nursing school. Harris purported to state claims against the defendants in their individual capacities. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on State-agent immunity. In addition, it also concluded that 9 of Harris's 12 counts failed to state claims upon which
relief can be granted. As discussed below, we affirm the trial court's judgment with respect to three of the defendants based on State-agent immunity, reverse the trial court's judgment to the extent it held that the remaining defendants are entitled to a judgment in their favor based on State-agent immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and affirm the trial court's judgment to the extent that it concludes that Harris failed to state valid claims in nine of her counts.
Facts and Procedural History
Harris entered the nursing school as a student in the fall of 2014. As a requirement of the nurse anesthesia program, Harris performed clinical work at the hospital in August 2016. Three nurses at the hospital, namely, Jeremy D. Taylor, Gary C. Hammond, and Dana Lambert, provided evaluations of Harris's clinical work. Harris alleges that those evaluations were "false, erroneous, incomplete, inaccurate, and prepared in bad faith." In fact, she claims that the evaluation prepared by Hammond was for a different nursing student but was incorrectly submitted as an evaluation of Harris's work. According to Harris, the evaluations resulted in the hospital's decision to refuse to allow her to continue her work there and in personnel at the nursing
school giving Harris a failing grade in her clinical nursing course and in dismissing her from the nursing school. Taylor, Hammond, and Lambert are named as defendants in Harris's complaint.
Another defendant, nurse Todd L. Hicks, also works at the hospital in a supervisory role. Hicks relayed the evaluations prepared by the other three nurses to the educators and administrators at the nursing school. Harris accuses Hicks of failing to ensure the accuracy of the evaluations.
Defendant Susan P. McMullan is a professor at the nursing school and is the director of the nurse anesthesia program. According to Harris, McMullan unilaterally made the decision to dismiss Harris from the nursing school. Harris criticizes McMullan for allegedly not "following required due process" before dismissing Harris.
Defendant Peter M. Tofani is an assistant dean for student affairs at the nursing school. He communicated with Harris and her attorney regarding the dismissal and appeal procedures. Harris accuses Tofani of failing to follow proper procedures in order "to cover up the negligent, wanton, intentional, and/or bad faith actions of the other Defendants."
Defendant Katie O. Woodfin is an instructor at the nursing school. Harris's complaint suggests that Woodfin worked alongside McMullan in reviewing the clinical evaluations created by the nurses at the hospital. Harris asserts that Woodfin should have done more to verify the accuracy of those evaluations.
Finally, defendant Jacqueline Moss is an assistant dean at the nursing school. She chaired a "grievance hearing panel" that considered Harris's objections to her dismissal from the nursing school. According to Harris, Moss was "biased" and improperly refused to allow Harris to examine all the witnesses she wanted to examine at the grievance hearing, including the three nurses at the hospital who generated the clinical evaluations, and refused to allow Harris to submit all the questions she wanted to submit to the witnesses who did testify at the hearing. After the hearing, Moss prepared a report recommending that Harris's dismissal be upheld.
Harris's complaint sets out 12 counts for relief, namely, 2 counts of invasion of privacy against all the defendants; 1 count of invasion of privacy against McMullan, Woodfin, Tofani, and Moss; 1 count of negligence against all the defendants except Moss; 1 count of negligence
against McMullan; 1 count of negligence against Tofani; 1 count of defamation against all the defendants; 1 count of interference with business relations against all the defendants; 1 count of "wrongful termination" against all the defendants; 1 count of wantonness against all the defendants; 1 count of fraud against all the defendants; and 1 count requesting declaratory and injunctive relief.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they are all entitled to State-agent immunity under Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala. 2000) (plurality opinion), which has been codified at § 36-1-12, Ala. Code 1975. They also argued that Harris had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in all counts except the three negligence counts. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of State-agent immunity. It also agreed with the defendants that Harris had failed to state a claim with respect to all but the three negligence counts. Harris appealed.
Standard of Review
The parties agree that this Court should apply the standard of review applicable to the dismissal of an action under Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P. In considering a ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), this Court considers whether, "when the allegations of the complaint are viewed most strongly in the pleader's favor, it appears that the pleader could prove any set of circumstances that would entitle [the pleader] to relief." Nance v. Matthews, 622 So.2d 297, 299 (Ala.1993). "This Court does not consider whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but only whether the plaintiff may possibly prevail." Lyons v. River Rd. Constr., Inc., 858 So.2d 257, 260 (Ala. 2003). A "Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Nance, 622 So.2d at 299.
Collateral Estoppel and the State-Agent Immunity of Defendants McMullan, Tofani, and Hicks
In an earlier action, Harris sued McMullan, Tofani, and Hicks, asserting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial