 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayes v. Ridgeview Health Care Center12/1/2000
Ridgeview Health Care Center, Inc., seeks a writ of mandamus directing Walker Circuit Judge Hugh Beaird to vacate his order compelling Ridgeview to respond to certain discovery requests seeking information that Ridgeview argues is not discoverable under provisions of the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987 and the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1996. We grant the petition.
I.
Ridgeview is a "health care provider" within the meaning of the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987. See Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-542(1). Lima Hayes had Alzheimer's disease and was a patient at Ridgeview. In November 1998, Lima Hayes, by and through her son, Billy Hayes, as her guardian and conservator, sued Ridgeview, alleging that it had breached the applicable standard of care by allowing her to: (1) wander away from Ridgeview's facility; (2) fall from her wheelchair at least twice; (3) become dehydrated; and (4) develop large sores on her body. She sought damages under theories of medical malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and the tort of outrage. Ms. Hayes subsequently died, and in March 1999 Billy Hayes filed an amended complaint, substituting himself as plaintiff in his capacity as administrator of his mother's estate and adding claims of "negligent, reckless and wanton ... screening, hiring, training, supervision and retention of [Ridgeview's] employees and staff," wrongful death, and breach of contract.
Hayes requested production of certain documents and answers to interrogatories. Ridgeview objected to certain of these discovery requests, based on Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-551 (prohibiting " ny party ... from conducting discovery with regard to any other act or omission"), and Ala. Code 1975, § 22-21-8(b) (providing that " ll accreditation, quality assurance credentialing and similar materials shall be held in confidence and shall not be subject to discovery"). Hayes moved to compel Ridgeview to respond. After conducting a hearing, the trial court ordered Ridgeview to respond to 14 of the requests for production and interrogatories, but limited the required responses to the three years "immediately preceding the date of [Ms. Hayes's] alleged injury."
Ridgeview challenges the trial court's order with respect to all the responses it ordered to requests for production of documents, and with respect to the response ordered to interrogatory number 6.
II.
"A petition for the writ of mandamus is the proper means for obtaining review of the question `whether a trial court has abused its discretion in ordering discovery, in resolving discovery matters, and in issuing discovery orders.'" Ex parte Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the City of Birmingham, 723 So. 2d 41, 42 (Ala. 1998) (quoting Ex parte Compass Bank, 686 So. 2d 1135, 1137 (Ala. 1996)).
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for it must show: (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty on the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court. See Ex parte Conference America, Inc., 713 So. 2d 953, 955 (Ala. 1998) (citing Ex parte Edgar, 543 So. 2d 682, 684 (Ala. 1989)).
Ridgeview first argues that the trial court erred by ordering it to respond to Hayes's requests for production no. 5 and no. 6, which seek information relating to the existence of, and the limits of, Ridgeview's liability-insurance coverage. Ridgeview argues that such information is prohibited from discovery under Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-548(d). Hayes says that he is entitled to discovery of Ridgeview's insurance-coverage limits because, h
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.
|
|