Tripp v. Humana, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1985 |
| Parties | Marilyn TRIPP and Nathanial Tripp v. HUMANA, INC., d/b/a Coffee General Hospital; Coffee General Hospital, et al. 84-149. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Tom R. Roper and Richard W. Bell of Bell & Associates, Pelham, for appellants.
William L. Lee, III and Peter A. McInish, Dothan, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment. The sole issue presented is the propriety of summary judgment in light of the facts before the trial court as gleaned from the complaint, Appellees' answer, Appellants' answers to interrogatories and deposition questions, and an affidavit offered by Appellants in opposition to summary judgment.
Appellant Marilyn Tripp was admitted to Coffee General Hospital for the delivery of her baby. During that hospitalization, Mrs. Tripp was given three injections (one in each thigh and one in her right hip) by the nursing staff. On the day she was discharged, Mrs. Tripp noticed a red spot at each injection site. During the next two weeks, Mrs. Tripp experienced a gradual worsening of the redness at the injection sites, a fluctuating fever (which finally reached 104? ), and stiffness and soreness in her legs. She was taken to the emergency room at the hospital on the Fort Rucker military installation and then transferred to the hospital at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi, for treatment of severe gangrene infections in her arms and legs. The damage done to Mrs. Tripp's legs as a result of the infection necessitated both surgery to remove affected tissue and corrective plastic surgery, leaving permanent scarring and physical symptoms.
Mr. and Mrs. Tripp filed a complaint charging Humana, Inc., and its subsidiary, Coffee General Hospital, Mrs. Tripp's physician, 1 and a nurse (Appellee Zeller) with negligent failure to provide Mrs. Tripp with reasonable medical care. Mr. Tripp also alleged that Appellees' negligence in providing medical services to his wife resulted in a loss of consortium to him.
Appellees Humana, Coffee General, and Zeller, by their answer, denied all the material allegations of the complaint and denied Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment based on the evidence then before the trial court. In addition to their own testimony, Mr. and Mrs. Tripp based their opposition to summary judgment on the affidavit of Joyce Chappelear, a registered nurse, who had reviewed Mrs. Tripp's medical records and had read the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Tripp. Based upon her education and training and upon her review of the records and testimony, Ms. Chappelear stated her professional opinion:
any liability to either Mr. or Mrs. Tripp. Mrs. Tripp's answers to interrogatories propounded by her doctor, prior to his dismissal, contained allegations that Mrs. Tripp's injuries were the result of an infection caused by negligent medical practice, specifically, the lack of sterile techniques and the lack of proper prescription medicine. Mrs. Tripp also testified, in deposition, that she remembers receiving the three injections while hospitalized at Coffee General and that she noticed the red spots at the injection sites the day she was released.
THE LAW
"The purpose of the motion for summary judgment is to test the sufficiency of the evidence to determine if any real issue exists." Garrigan v. Hinton Beef and Provision Co., 425 So.2d 1091, 1093 (Ala.1983). The fundamental principles of law controlling both the propriety...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. v. McGugin
-
Avery v. Geneva County
...is any genuine issue of material fact and if the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A.R.Civ.P. 56; Tripp v. Humana, Inc., 474 So.2d 88 (Ala.1985). We note that this case was filed after June 11, 1987, and is therefore subject to the "substantial evidence" rule. See Ala.Cod......
-
Hilliard v. City of Huntsville Elec. Utility Bd.
...no genuine issue of material fact and the movant must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ala.R.Civ.P. 56(c), Tripp v. Humana, Inc., 474 So.2d 88 (Ala.1985). Further, on review of a summary judgment, we must view all the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, and we ......
-
Hulbert v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, Ala. R. Civ. P.; Tripp v. Humana, Inc., 474 So.2d 88, 90 (Ala. 1985). After the moving party makes a prima facie showing that summary judgment is proper, the nonmovant, to avoid a summary judg......