Wilkinson v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala. (Ex parte Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala.)
Citation | 102 So.3d 368 |
Decision Date | 25 May 2012 |
Docket Number | 1100993. |
Parties | Ex parte BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS OF ALABAMA. (In re Mary Ann Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Prim Escalona and Hendon Blaylock Coody, deputy attys. gen., for petitioner.
J. Bradley Medaris and Robert N. Barber of Barber Medaris, LLC, Hoover, for respondent.
William F. Addison, Alabama Board of Medical Examiners, Montgomery; and Wayne P. Turner, Medical Licensure Commission of Alabama, Montgomery, for amici curiae Alabama Board of Medical Examiners and the Medical Licensure Commission of Alabama, in support of the petitioner.
Emily C. Marks of Ball, Ball, Matthews & Novak, P.A., Montgomery; and Jack R. Bierig of Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for amici curiae American Dental Association and the Alabama Dental Association, in support of the petitioner.
We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama (“the Board”) seeking review of the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, 102 So.3d 362 (Ala.Civ.App.2011), in which the Court of Civil Appeals held that the Board was not a State agency and thus was not entitled to immunity pursuant to Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const.1901. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.
The pertinent facts are stated in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion in Wilkinson:
“Mary Ann Wilkinson was employed by the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama (‘the Board’) for several years, until the Board terminated her employment in December 2009. During her tenure with the Board, Wilkinson was employed pursuant to yearly contracts. Wilkinson's employment contracts provided that the ‘sole remedy for the settlement of any and all disputes arising under the terms of this agreement shall be limited to the filing of a claim with the Board of Adjustment for the State of Alabama.’
“__________
Wilkinson's appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals challenged the Board's entitlement to immunity under § 14. In addressing that issue, the Court of Civil Appeals stated:
“
After discussing this Court's decisions in Armory Commission of Alabama v. Staudt, 388 So.2d 991, 993 (Ala.1980); White v. Alabama Insane Hospital, 138 Ala. 479, 482, 35 So. 454, 454 (1903); Ex parte Greater Mobile–Washington County Mental Health–Mental Retardation Board, Inc., 940 So.2d 990, 1004 (Ala.2006) (“ MH–MRB ”), the Court of Civil Appeals stated:
“Based on the above-quoted language from White, and the outcome in Staudt, the Board argues that it, like other agencies created for purposes benefiting the public interest, is immune under § 14 by virtue of its creation by the legislature. The Board, however, misunderstands the test enunciated in Staudt and followed since, which focuses on much more than whether the alleged ‘agency’ was created by the legislature for some purpose of benefit to the public.
“To be sure, the functions and purpose of an entity seeking immunity is an important factor under the Staudt test; however, our supreme court has explained that the main, but not sole, focus of the immunity determination must be whether the liability of the entity would result in liability for the State and thus potentially impact the State treasury. Ex parte Greater Mobile–Washington County Mental Health–Mental Retardation Bd., Inc., 940 So.2d 990, 1004 (Ala.2006) (‘MH–MRB ’). As explained in MH–MRB, in most every case decided after Staudt, the ‘treasury factor’ has been, if not the determinative factor, one of the determinative factors in deciding whether an entity was a State agency entitled to § 14 immunity. MH–MRB, 940 So.2d at 1004. Immunity is designed to shield the State treasury, not to afford immunity to each and every entity created by statute, even if the purpose of the entity is to protect the public welfare.
“Based on Staudt and as explained in MH–MRB, we must examine the ‘complete relationship between the State and the Board,’ MH–MRB, 940 So.2d at 1005, and we begin by first noting that, despite the trial court's finding that ‘the funds raised by the Board are appropriated by the State to the Board,’ it does not appear that the Board receives any State funds at all. One of the statutes creating the Board does contain language indicating that all money collected by the Board is ‘appropriated’ to the Board. Ala.Code 1975, § 34–9–41. However, that same statute further provides that the money collected by the Board for fees and other receipts is paid to the secretary-treasurer of the Board and is deposited in a bank selected by the members of the Board. Id. The money collected by the Board is never placed in the State treasury. Cf.Ala.Code 1975, § 34–43–14 ( ). The Board, from all that appears in the record, is fully self-supporting, and no actual appropriation of funds to the Board from the State appears to be required in order for it to perform its functions. Thus, the State does not ‘ “suppl[y] the means” by which [the Board is]...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ala. State Univ. v. Danley
...where there is claimed a legal or moral obligation resting on the state...."(Emphasis added.) See also Ex parte Board of Dental Exam'rs of Alabama, 102 So.3d 368, 387 (Ala.2012) (" ‘The Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over claims against the state that are not justiciable in the courts......
-
Health Care Auth. for Baptist Health v. Davis, 1090084.
...an entity that is charged with a strictly governmental function, e.g., law enforcement. Compare, e.g., Ex parte Board of Dental Exam'rs of Alabama, 102 So.3d 368 (Ala.2012) (citing and quoting Ala.Code 1975, §§ 34–9–40(a), 34–9–43, 34–9–46, and 34–9–5 ), with Ala.Code 1975, § 22–21–318. Cle......
-
DDS v. Bd. of Dental Examiners of Ala.
...arm of the state entitled to immunity from a breach-of-contract claim under Alabama’s constitution. See Ex parte Bd. of Dental Examiners of Alabama , 102 So.3d 368, 370, 386 (Ala. 2012). Though "[w]hether an agency qualifies as an arm of the state is a federal question with a federal standa......
-
Sumter Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Univ. of W. Ala.
...in law or equity, cognizable by the courts.’" 234 Ala. at 641, 176 So. at 479 (emphasis added)." Ex parte Board of Dental Exam'rs of Alabama, 102 So. 3d 368, 387-88 (Ala. 2012). See also Vaughan v. Sibley, 709 So. 2d 482, 486 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) ("The Board of Adjustment has exclusive jur......