Wilkinson v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala.
Decision Date | 20 May 2011 |
Docket Number | 2100175. |
Parties | Mary Ann WILKINSON v. BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS OF ALABAMA. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
J. Bradley Medaris and Robert N. Barber of Barber Medaris, LLC, Birmingham, for appellant.
Hendon Blaylock Coody, deputy atty. gen., Montgomery, for appellee.
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.”
In July 2010, Wilkinson sued the Board, seeking compensation she alleged was due her pursuant to her employment contracts. Wilkinson based her breach-of-contract claim on an audit of the Board covering the period between October 2003 and September 2007 conducted by the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts of Alabama, which was completed in February 2009. Wilkinson alleged that the audit had revealed that the Board had not paid Wilkinson for her attendance at Board meetings between October 2004 and September 2007 and that the Board had overpaid Wilkinson other compensation. According to Wilkinson's complaint, the audit determined that the Board had underpaid Wilkinson $31,950 and had overpaid Wilkinson $21,787.92. Thus, Wilkinson contended in her complaint that the Board owed her $10,162.08. She also requested a further audit and compensation for her attendance at Board meetings between October 2007 and December 2009.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss Wilkinson's complaint, in which it alleged that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., on the ground that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Board, as a State agency, is immune from suit under Ala. Const.1901, Art. I, § 14; that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., because it failed to state a claim; and that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., for improper venue. The motion to dismiss contained legal argument concerning only the immunity issue and whether the employment contracts, which provided that Wilkinson's sole remedy would lie with the Board of Adjustment, barred her complaint in the circuit court. Wilkinson responded to the Board's motion to dismiss with a detailed brief, 1 arguing that the Board did not qualify for immunity under § 14 and that, therefore, her claim could not be heard by the Board of Adjustment. SeeAla.Code 1975, § 41–9–62(b) ( ); see also Lee v. Cunningham, 234 Ala. 639, 641, 176 So. 477, 479 (1937); and Vaughan v. Sibley, 709 So.2d 482, 486 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (). After the Board replied to Wilkinson's response and after a hearing, the trial court dismissed Wilkinson's complaint, finding in its order that the Board was a State agency because “the funds raised by the Board are appropriated by the State to the Board for use as provided by statute.” Wilkinson timely appealed to this court.
“In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147[, 1148–49] (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction:
“ ”
Pontius v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 915 So.2d 557, 563 (Ala.2005).
On appeal, Wilkinson challenges the Board's entitlement to § 14 immunity.
Thomas v. Alabama Mun. Elec. Auth., 432 So.2d 470, 480 (Ala.1983). Wilkinson argues that the Board is not an “immediate and strictly governmental agenc[y] of the State,” and, therefore, that it is not entitled to § 14 immunity.
The Board relies on Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, 620 So.2d 13, 18 (Ala.Civ.App.1992), and Vining v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, 492 So.2d 607, 610 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). In both cases, this court described the Board as a State agency. In neither case was the immunity of the Board an issue, and in neither case, as Wilkinson aptly points out, did this court undertake an analysis of the factors relevant to a determination whether the Board is an “agency” entitled to § 14 immunity. Thus, we agree with Wilkinson that our inquiry cannot end with Delavan and Vining.
Alabama courts have spent considerable time developing a method for determining when an entity created by the legislature is an “immediate and strictly governmental agenc[y] of the State” for purposes of § 14 immunity.
Armory Comm'n of Alabama v. Staudt, 388 So.2d 991, 993 (Ala.1980) (citing State Docks Comm'n v. Barnes, 225 Ala. 403, 406–07, 143 So. 581, 584 (1932)). In Staudt, the supreme court was called upon to determine whether the Armory Commission of Alabama (“the commission”) was immune from a suit arising from a slip and fall on the premises of a National Guard Armory. Staudt, 388 So.2d at 992. The statute creating the Commission permitted it to incorporate and to sue or be sued in its own name. Id. However, the supreme court noted that the statute permitting the Commission to sue or be sued could not waive § 14 immunity if the Commission were a State agency entitled to such immunity. Id. The mere fact that the Commission was a corporate body was not determinative, said the court; instead, as quoted above, the court indicated that three main factors should be considered when determining whether a certain entity is immune from suit under § 14: “the character of power delegated to the body, the relation of the body to the state, and the nature of the function performed by the body.” Id. at 993. Because the State appropriated money to the Commission and because the governor was authorized to use other State funds to pay any expenses or obligations of the Commission if the appropriation were insufficient, the Staudt court determined that the Commission was, indeed, an agency of the State, in large part because a suit against the Commission had the ability to impact the State treasury. Id. at 993–94.
The Board relies on language quoted in Staudt, 388 So.2d at 993–94, which first appeared in White v. Alabama Insane Hospital, 138 Ala. 479, 482, 35 So. 454, 454 (1903), as a basis for its argument that it is entitled to § 14 immunity:
White, 138 Ala. at 481–82, 35 So. at 454. In White, the supreme court determined that the Alabama Insane Hospital (“the hospital”) was immune from suit. The court described the Hospital as “a mere state agency created for the purpose of [ ] caring for and treating the unfortunate insane citizens of the State—a purely governmental function, wise and beneficial.” Id. at 483, 35 So. at 454. However, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilkinson v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala. (Ex parte Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala.)
...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......
-
Labor and Employment
...Bd. of Dental Exam'rs of Ala. (Versiglio I), 651 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2011), vacated by Versiglio II, 686 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2012).139. 102 So. 3d 362 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), rev'd, 102 So. 3d 368 (Ala. 2012).140. Versiglio I, 651 F.3d at 1276-77.141. Id. at 1277.142. In Versiglio II the c......