 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Saunders v. North Alabama Neurological5/21/1999
REL: 05/21/99 SAUNDERS
In November 1995, Larry N. Saunders sued North Alabama Neurological, P.A., and Robert L. Hash II, M.D., (collectively "Dr. Hash"), for damages based on an allegation that Dr. Hash had committed medical malpractice in treating him. Larry Saunders's wife Sandra Saunders also sued, for loss of consortium. Dr. Hash filed a motion for a summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The Saunderses appealed to the supreme court, which transferred the case to this court pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, ยง 12-2-7(6).
A motion for summary judgment is to be granted when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. See West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d 870 (Ala. 1989), and Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So. 2d 794 (Ala. 1989), for a Discussion of the application of the substantial-evidence rule in the summary- judgment context.
Dr. Hash performed brain surgery on Mr. Saunders in June 1994. According to Mrs. Saunders, Mr. Saunders became paralyzed, blind, and totally disabled following the surgery. Mrs. Saunders has a general power of attorney for Mr. Saunders. Mrs. Saunders consulted an attorney in October 1994 regarding her concerns about the effects of the surgery, and in November 1994 she consulted the attorney who filed this medicalmalpractice action; it was filed in November 1995. In November 1994, Mrs. Saunders consulted an attorney to discuss bankruptcy , and in January 1995 the Saunderses filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. In the petition, the Saunderses did not disclose their claim against Dr. Hash. In April 1995, the bankruptcy court ordered a discharge of the Saunderses' debts.
Dr. Hash argued in the summary judgment motion that the Saunderses were judicially estopped from pursuing this malpractice claim because they did not disclose it on their bankruptcy petition. We agree.
"The doctrine of judicial estoppel applies, where a debtor in bankruptcy proceedings fails to disclose any claim that may be presented in a non-bankruptcy contest, to estop the debtor from presenting the claim." Luna v. Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee, Inc., 631 So. 2d 917, 919 (Ala. 1993) (citations omitted). See also Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 848 F.2d 414 (3d Cir. 1988), for a Discussion of "the debtor's express obligation of candid disclosure." "The doctrine applies to preclude a party from assuming a position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with a position previously asserted." Luna, 631 So. 2d at 918. The holding of Luna has been consistently followed. Bertrand v. Handley, 646 So. 2d 16 (Ala. 1994); Cooks v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 695 So. 2d 19 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
In Underwood v. First Franklin Financial Corp., 710 So. 2d 424 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997), this court held that whether Underwood was judicially estopped from suing First Franklin and other defendants, because she had failed to list her claims on her bankruptcy petition, was an issue of fact precluding a summary judgment for First Franklin. That holding in Underwood is hereby overruled, because the question whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies is not a factual issue.
Mrs. Saunders met with two attorneys to discuss the effect Dr. Hash's surgery might have had on the disabilities Mr. Saunders subsequently experienced. When the Saunderses filed their bankruptcy petition, Mrs. Saunders knew that she and her husband had possible claims against Dr. Hash, and their failure to disclose those possible claims on their bankruptcy petition judicially estops them from suing Dr. Hash.
The tr
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.
|
|