 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bullin v. Correctional Medical Services11/19/2004
Jamie Bullin, Lisa Johnson, and Tabitha Manuel ("the employees") appeal from a summary judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court on their tort claim against their employer, Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS"), arising out of an incident that occurred on August 31, 2000, in the health-care unit at the Fountain Correctional Facility. We reverse and remand.
In August 2002, the employees brought a civil action against CMS, three individuals employed by the Alabama Department of Corrections, and several fictitiously named defendants in the Baldwin Circuit Court. With respect to CMS, the employees collectively alleged that CMS had "negligently, wantonly, recklessly and/or intentionally failed to formulate, implement and oversee policies and procedure for the protection of the [employees] from the wrongful conduct of the prison population" and that the employees had been "terrorized" and "caused to suffer severe and continuing mental anguish and emotional distress" as a proximate result of CMS's omissions. The Baldwin Circuit Court transferred the cause to the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the trial court") on the named defendants' motion.
After the cause was transferred to the trial court, CMS filed a motion for a summary judgment, alleging that the employees' exclusive remedy was a claim under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, § 25-5-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the Act"). In support of its motion, CMS filed excerpts from the transcribed deposition of Manuel; CMS later filed the complete transcripts of the employees' depositions. In a statement filed in opposition to CMS's motion, the employees contended that their claim alleged purely psychological injuries and that the claim was, therefore, outside the scope of the Act's exclusivity provisions. The trial court entered an order granting CMS's summary-judgment motion on February 11, 2004, and it directed the entry of a final judgment as to that order pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. The employees appealed, and the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975.
Our standard of review is well-settled:
"A motion for summary judgment tests the sufficiency of the evidence. Such a motion is to be granted when the trial court determines that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the burden of negating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Furthermore, when a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in Rule 56, [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] the non-movant may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Proof by substantial evidence is required."
Sizemore v. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, 671 So. 2d 674, 675 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) (citations omitted).
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Act bars the employees' tort claim. In Ex parte Shelby County Health Care Authority, 850 So. 2d 332 (Ala. 2002), the Alabama Supreme Court addressed whether Ala. Code 1975, §§ 25-5-52 and 25-5-53, i.e., the Act's exclusivity provisions, barred a tort claim filed by a nurse against her employer, a county hospital, arising from an automobile accident that occurred while she was commuting to her home after completing two consecutive 16-hour work shifts with an 8-hour break between those shifts. After considering the "plain language of the exclusivity provisions," 850 So. 2d at 337, the Supreme Court concluded that the Act did not bar the nurse's tort claim, holding that "the Act is the exclusive remedy when an employee is injured
Page 1 2 3 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|