Hooks v. Pettaway
Decision Date | 08 November 2013 |
Docket Number | 2120224. |
Citation | 142 So.3d 1151 |
Parties | Ethel L. HOOKS, individually and on behalf of her minor children v. Joseph D. PETTAWAY. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Robert D. Bryant of Turner, Turner & Bryant, Marion, for appellant.
Walter G. (Stoney) Chavers of Fleming & Chavers, L.L.P., Mobile, for appellee.
Ethel L. Hooks (“Hooks”), individually and on behalf of her four minor children, Roger J. Hooks, Jr., Johnathan 1 Hooks, Jordan Woodyard, and Janae Woodyard (collectively the “the Hookses”), appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of Joseph D. Pettaway (“Pettaway”). We affirm the judgment as to those issues properly raised by Pettaway in his motion for a summary judgment and for which the burden shifted to Hooks to present substantial, admissible evidence in opposition. We reverse the judgment as to those issues not properly raised by Pettaway in his motion for a summary judgment and for which the burden never shifted to Hooks to present substantial, admissible evidence in opposition.
This case was previously addressed by this court in Hooks v. Pettaway, 102 So.3d 391 (Ala.Civ.App.2012), in which we summarized the facts as follows:
102 So.3d at 392. We reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that “allowing Hooks only one day's notice to prepare a response to the [summary-judgment] motion caused inevitable prejudice to Hooks.” Id. at 393. We noted that, “[a]lthough Hooks may not ultimately prevail in opposing the motion for a summary judgment, she is entitled to an opportunity to respond to the motion.” Id.
On remand, Pettaway filed a second motion for a summary judgment, which he described as a “renewed motion.” Pettaway did not address the issue of his liability to Hooks in the renewed motion. Instead, he argued that there was a lack of substantial evidence indicating that the accident proximately caused any damage to Johnathan's lung, one of the claims apparently made in the complaint.2 In the renewed motion, he alleged:
“....
In the renewed motion, Pettaway made a cursory argument regarding Hooks's claim for medical expenses:
(Citations omitted.)
Attached as exhibits to Pettaway's renewed motion for a summary judgment were excerpts from the deposition of Hooks, as well as from the depositions of Dr. Dwight Yoder and Dr. Kimberly Cole, physicians who had treated Johnathan at different times. In her deposition, Hooks described the circumstances of the accident and its aftermath, stating that Pettaway's car hit her car from the back as she drove forward after being stopped at an intersection; that Johnathan complained of headaches and vomited twice shortly after the accident; and that she telephoned Dr. Yoder regarding Johnathan's complaints the day of the accident and was told to monitor his condition. The excerpts from Hooks's deposition indicate that the other three children complained of injuries following the accident; that Janae still complains of leg pain; and that Hooks took all the children to physicians within a few days of the accident.
The deposition excerpts of Dr. Yoder indicated that he saw Johnathan on September 17, 2009, three days after the accident. Dr. Yoder did not find that Johnathan had a pneumothorax, also known as a collapsed lung, at that time of his examination, but he found Johnathan's symptoms to be consistent with asthma.
The excerpts from the deposition of Dr. Cole indicated that she saw Johnathan at an unspecified time, and that he apparently had a collapsed lung at the time of that examination. Dr. Cole testified that the collapsed lung could have been caused by influenza or the motor-vehicle accident, but she could not give an opinion as to which event actually caused the collapsed lung.
Hooks responded to the renewed motion with a 2 1/2–page brief, in which she specifically referred to the claims apparently asserted in the complaint:
.) . )
. ) .” )
Hooks claimed in her response that a summary judgment was not appropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Pettaway's alleged negligence in causing the accident. Her sole argument consisted of the following:
(Citation omitted.)
Hooks attached deposition excerpts of Dr. Cole as well. Hooks's entire argument regarding the deposition testimony of Dr. Cole consisted of a single sentence: In the deposition excerpts submitted by Hooks, Dr. Cole testified that she examined Johnathan and diagnosed him with “posttraumatic headache,” or “headache after a trauma.” The date of the examination is not made clear. At some point in time, not specifically indicated in the record, Dr. Cole diagnosed Johnathan with influenza “A” and also treated him for a collapsed lung. Dr. Cole identified the reported automobile accident, influenza, and asthma as risk factors that may have caused Johnathan's collapsed lung, but she could not say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty which factor was the cause.
Regarding Pettaway's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Magrinat v. Maddox, 2150357.
...those medical expenses that are reasonable and necessary." Ex parte Hicks, 537 So.2d 486, 489–90 (Ala.1988) ; Hooks v. Pettaway, 142 So.3d 1151, 1158 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). "This Court has consistently held that '[c]ompensatory damages are designed to make the plaintiff whole by reimbursing hi......