Panayiotou v. Johnson
Decision Date | 30 May 2008 |
Docket Number | 1061829. |
Citation | 995 So.2d 871 |
Parties | Hercules PANAYIOTOU, M.D. v. Jamie Sullivan JOHNSON, as administratrix of the estate of Mae Sullivan, deceased. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
A. Danner Frazer, Jr., W. Austin Mulherin III, and Mary Margaret Bailey of Frazer, Greene, Upchurch & Baker, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellant.
Russell E. Bergerstrom, Mobile; and R. Ray Orrill, Jr., of Orrill, Cordell & Beary, L.L.C., New Orleans, Louisiana, for appellee.
Dr. Hercules Panayiotou appeals the order of the Mobile Circuit Court denying his motion for a summary judgment in the medical-malpractice action filed against him by Jamie Sullivan Johnson, as administratrix of the estate of Mae Sullivan, deceased. We reverse and remand.
On March 7, 2002, Dr. Panayiotou performed a heart-catheterization procedure on Mae Sullivan at the Mobile Infirmary Medical Center. During the course of the procedure, a coronary artery ruptured. Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery was performed; however, Sullivan died on March 9, 2002.
On March 8, 2004, Johnson sued Dr. Panayiotou, Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, and Dr. Panayiotou's medical practice, IMC Diagnostic & Medical Clinic, P.C., in the Mobile Circuit Court, alleging medical malpractice.1 On May 11, 2007, Dr. Panayiotou moved for a summary judgment arguing that Johnson could not establish, by substantial evidence, that he had breached the appropriate standard of care during his treatment of Sullivan. Specifically, Dr. Panayiotou argued that because Johnson's action was governed by the Alabama Medical Liability Act, § 6-5-540 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the AMLA"), Johnson was required to present expert testimony from a "similarly situated health care provider" to establish a breach of the standard of care. See Holcomb v. Carraway, 945 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Ala.2006) ( ). Dr. Panayiotou further argued that the only expert witness identified by Johnson, Dr. Jay N. Schapira, was not a "similarly situated health care provider" as that term is defined in § 6-5-548(c) because, he says, while Dr. Panayiotou was certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine ("ABIM") in internal medicine, cardiovascular disease, and interventional cardiology, Dr. Schapira was certified by ABIM in only internal medicine and cardiovascular disease.2 Therefore, Dr. Panayiotou argued, because it was undisputed that he was practicing interventional cardiology when he performed the heart-catheterization procedure on Sullivan, Dr. Schapira was not a similarly situated health-care provider eligible to provide expert testimony regarding the standard of care. In conjunction with his motion for a summary judgment, Dr. Panayiotou submitted an excerpt of his own deposition in which he stated that he received his "interventional cardiology certification the first time [the examination] was ever given in 1999" and a copy of his curriculum vitae showing, under a heading listing the examinations he had passed:
On June 14, 2007, Johnson filed her response to Dr. Panayiotou's summary-judgment motion, arguing that § 6-5-548(c) requires only that an expert witness be certified in the same "specialty" as the defendant to be considered a similarly situated health-care provider and that Dr. Panayiotou and Dr. Schapira are in fact both certified in the same specialty—internal medicine. Cardiovascular disease, she argues, is actually a "subspecialty" of internal medicine, and interventional cardiology is, at best, she argues, another "subspecialty" of internal medicine. However, she argues, interventional cardiology is more properly viewed as a subspecialty of cardiovascular disease and thus a "sub-subspecialty" of internal medicine.
Finally, Johnson also submitted a copy of Dr. Panayiotou's curriculum vitae and noted that it specifically designated the examination he passed in November 1993 as being for the "Cardiovascular Subspecialty" (emphasis added), but the November 1999 examination was merely listed as being for "interventional cardiology" with any description of that practice as a subspecialty conspicuously absent.4
After receiving Johnson's motion opposing his summary-judgment motion, Dr. Panayiotou filed, on June 18, 2007, a motion asking the trial court to strike Dr. Schapira's affidavit on the ground that it contradicted his previous sworn testimony.5 See Wilson v. Teng, 786 So.2d 485, 497 (Ala. 2000) . The next day, June 19, 2007, Dr. Panayiotou filed another motion asking the trial court also to strike the printed copies of pages taken from ABMS and ABIM's respective Web sites on the ground that the documents were unsworn, uncertified, unauthenticated, and, therefore, inadmissible. See Carter v. Cantrell Mach. Co., 662 So.2d 891, 893 (Ala.1995) (). Dr. Panayiotou simultaneously submitted a personal affidavit in which he made the following statements:
On June 21, 2007, Dr. Panayiotou submitted two additional affidavits. In the first, ABIM official Joan Otto swore that "[ABIM] recognized certification in Interventional Cardiology in 1999" and that "Dr. Panayiotou was certified by [ABIM] in Interventional Cardiology in 1999." In the second, Amy A. Mosser, vice president of administration and operations for ABMS, swore as follows:
On August 15, 2007, the trial court denied Dr. Panayiotou's motion for a summary judgment, holding that Dr. Schapira was a similarly situated health-care provider "regardless of [his] lack of sub-subspecialty certification" and without addressing whether Dr. Panayiotou was actually certified as a specialist in interventional cardiology in March 2002 when he performed the heart catheterization on Sullivan. The trial court simultaneously entered an order granting Dr. Panayiotou's "motion to strike" without specifying whether it intended to grant the June 18 motion to strike, the June 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Indus. Dev. Bd. of the City of Montgomery v. Russell
...970 So. 2d 292, 295 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Dow v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 (Ala. 2004))."Panayiotou v. Johnson, 995 So. 2d 871, 875-76 (Ala. 2008). "Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Davis v. Hanson Aggregates Southeast, Inc., 952 So. 2d 330 (Ala. 2006)." McLemo......
-
Indus. Dev. Bd. of Montgomery v. Russell
...970 So.2d 292, 295 (Ala.2007) (quoting Dow v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So.2d 1035, 1038–39 (Ala.2004)).”Panayiotou v. Johnson, 995 So.2d 871, 875–76 (Ala.2008). “Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Davis v. Hanson Aggregates Southeast, Inc., 952 So.2d 330 (Ala.2006).” McLemore, 7 So......
-
ALFA Life Ins. Corp. v. Reese
...970 So.2d 292, 295 (Ala.2007) (quoting Dow v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So.2d 1035, 1038–39 (Ala.2004) )."Panayiotou v. Johnson, 995 So.2d 871, 875–76 (Ala.2008).III. IssuesThe defendants summarize their arguments as follows:"The Circuit Court Order denying [the defendants'] renewed mot......
-
In re Special Task Force on Practice & Procedure in Civil Cases
...as "a particular branch of medicine or surgery in which [a physician] can potentially become board certified"); Panayiotou v. Johnson, 995 So. 2d 871, 877 (Ala. 2008) (holding that "if an appropriate American medical board recognizes an area of medicine as a distinct field and certifies hea......