Alvin Murray v. Prison Health Services, Inc., and Kay Wilson, R.N., H.S.A.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/30/2012 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e Courts, 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2060068 A l v i n Murray v. P r i s o n H e a l t h S e r v i c e s , Inc., and Kay Wilson, R.N., H.S.A. Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-04-1592) Court PER CURIAM. Alvin Facility his of civil Murray, an inmate at Easterling Correctional ("the p r i s o n " ) , a p p e a l s f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t action theprison, against Prison dismissing G w e n d o l y n M o s l e y , who w a s t h e w a r d e n Health Services, I n c . , and Kay Wilson, 2060068 who was Health the administrator Services r e f e r r e d t o as by filing and Prison Wilson "PHS"). a petition of 1 are Health Services hereinafter (Prison collectively In h i s a c t i o n , which Murray initiated f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, M u r r a y a p p e a r s to I n i t s b r i e f on a p p e a l , PHS s t a t e s t h a t , a l t h o u g h M u r r a y has n e v e r n o t i f i e d i t t h a t he has b e e n r e l e a s e d f r o m t h e p r i s o n , t h e A l a b a m a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s o f f i c e has i n d i c a t e d t h a t M u r r a y i s no l o n g e r i n c a r c e r a t e d . I f t h a t i s the case, M u r r a y w o u l d no l o n g e r be u n d e r t h e c a r e o f t h e p r i s o n ' s h e a l t h s e r v i c e s and M u r r a y ' s r e q u e s t t h a t t h i s c o u r t d i r e c t t h e p r i s o n t o p r o v i d e him w i t h c e r t a i n m e d i c a l c a r e w o u l d be moot. As o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d i n Underwood v. A l a b a m a S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 39 So. 3d 120, 129 ( A l a . 2009), " ' [ a ] c a s e i s moot when t h e r e i s no r e a l c o n t r o v e r s y and i t s e e k s t o d e t e r m i n e an a b s t r a c t q u e s t i o n w h i c h does n o t r e s t on e x i s t i n g f a c t s o r r i g h t s ( q u o t i n g S t a t e ex r e l . E a g e r t o n v. C o r w i n , 359 So. 2d 767, 769 ( A l a . 1977) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . See a l s o , e.g., K i n g v. C a m p b e l l , 988 So. 2d 969, 976 ( A l a . 2007) ("'We have h e l d t h a t i f an e v e n t h a p p e n i n g a f t e r h e a r i n g and d e c r e e i n c i r c u i t c o u r t , b u t b e f o r e a p p e a l i s t a k e n , o r p e n d i n g a p p e a l , makes d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l u n n e c e s s a r y 1 y or renders i t c l e a r l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o grant e f f e c t u a l r e l i e f , the appeal w i l l be dismissed.'" ( q u o t i n g M o r r i s o n v. M u l l i n s , 275 A l a . 258, 259, 154 So. 2d 16, 18 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ) ) . However, PHS d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e r e c o r d on appeal w i t h evidence r e g a r d i n g Murray's s t a t u s . B e c a u s e we a r e l i m i t e d t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , we must address Murray's appeal. See B e v e r l y v. B e v e r l y , 28 So. 3d 1, 4 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ("An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s c o n f i n e d i n i t s r e v i e w t o t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d [ ; ] t h a t r e c o r d c a n n o t be 'changed, a l t e r e d , o r v a r i e d on a p p e a l by s t a t e m e n t s i n b r i e f s o f c o u n s e l , ' and t h e c o u r t may n o t 'assume e r r o r o r presume t h e e x i s t e n c e o f f a c t s as t o w h i c h t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t . ' Q u i c k v. B u r t o n , 960 So. 2d 678, 680-81 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 00 6)."). 2 2060068 have sought an directing treatment. with medical order He and PHS. case-action service was perfected only t h e r e was an attempt participant in this Because Mosley was a dismissing final 478, f o r purposes 480 final unless In case. PHS filed to treat his on access osteosclerosis as claimed that, without worse. On "an October disk in his the ("A claims Rule and 4, Ala. in evidence was R. never Civ. the P. judgment G a r m o n , 25 judgment or that i t s entirety L a n e y v. rights she action, PHS against indicates i s no him was So. 3d i s g e n e r a l l y not l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l decided."). him corrective See 2009) denied "take Mosley, against a l l c l a i m s , or "complaint," to provide There a party in this action his petition, necessary his See of a p p e a l . have been PHS summary to PHS. serve ( A l a . C i v . App. parties, that Murray's as to never and also asserted tort Mosley that The Mosley 19, 2004, M u r r a y care t h a t he osteosclerosis. hardening treatment, 2004, action" 30, to medical abnormal i n which back. July he by the Murray alleged Murray 3 bones." a motion t h a t PHS claimed the had surgery that was defined c o n d i t i o n would filed performing said Murray of claimed on to He grow amend refused a "[t]he to slipped medical 2060068 treatment that needed "the decision departure The on stating July from alleged not t o order that, professional no a c t i o n Murray filed substantial judgment." on M u r r a y ' s p e t i t i o n , a n d petition "had o n l y PHS h a d v i o l a t e d i s a a "supplemental since h i s original h i s condition that surgery accepted 20, 2006, 2004, [ s i c ] and n o t c o r r e c t i v e " and court took trial April Act i s inadequate had been worsened." t h e Alabama complaint," filed i n He 2 Medical also Liability ( " t h e A M L A " ) , § 6-5-480 e t s e q . a n d § 6-5-540 e t s e q . , b y providing himwith "substandard medical that alleged, substandard care, suffer pain f o ra long cruel and unusual litigation was p e n d i n g physical complaints. that, although "though not Murray period, which, punishment. care." he h a d b e e n he s a i d , Apparently, In the supplemental while the f o rh i s c o m p l a i n t , he s t a t e d he was r e c e i v i n g complete of denial" made t o amounted t o M u r r a y r e c e i v e d some t r e a t m e n t the treatment a As a r e s u l t o f at that treatment, time, " i s so We note that, i n the s t y l e of the "supplemental c o m p l a i n t , " M u r r a y i n c l u d e d t h e name "Dr. D a r b o u z e . " W i l s o n ' s name was n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t y l e . M u r r a y does n o t i d e n t i f y a Dr. Darbouze i n t h e " s u p p l e m e n t a l c o m p l a i n t , " and t h e c a s e a c t i o n summary d o e s n o t show t h a t s u c h an i n d i v i d u a l was e v e r served i n t h i s case. Thus, "Dr. Darbouze" i s n o t a p a r t y i n this action. See R u l e 4, A l a . R. C i v . P. 2 4 2060068 substandard and/or as i t amounts amounts constitute t o such 8, 2 0 0 6 , court to dismiss which d i d not reference failed regarding the alleged an a c t i o n included the filed Mosley, PHS sufficient asking i t . detail The m o t i o n that notation i t was g r a n t e d . Murray's also f o rdismissal of t o , various forms of remedies, a s s e r t i n g improper venue and l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . On t h e same d a y t h e m o t i o n handwritten Murray's i s required immunity, Murray's f a i l u r e t o exhaust a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and g r o u n d s trial and s p e c i f i c i t y t o t h e AMLA. i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d that which o f 12 o t h e r g r o u n d s the In the motion, argued medical malpractice, a laundry l i s t action, against pursuant a l l , t r e a t m e n t " as t o a motion action to include at punishment. PHS f i l e d Murray's pleadings no t r e a t m e n t substandard medical c r u e l and u n u s u a l On A u g u s t for to basically was f i l e d , on t h e f r o n t court of the motion The c a s e - a c t i o n a c t i o n was d i s m i s s e d the t r i a l made a indicating summary i n d i c a t e s without prejudice that on A u g u s t 2 1 , 2006. On A u g u s t 29, 2006, Murray timely appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. filed This h i s notice court's sheet i n d i c a t e s that the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals 5 of docket transferred 2060068 the appeal to t h i s c o u r t on O c t o b e r 2 0 , 2006. 2006, t h i s c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d the a p p e a l Court f o r l a c k of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 2012, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t court pursuant was submitted briefs whether without reads the trial conducting the apparent body an of court the on w h i c h , to proceed with first note petition Regardless for of a the writ in dismissing his amended Malachi Min. 1987) the he of his brief, is likely one i t is set forth to succeed s h o u l d have been g i v e n on the action. mandamus Murray's are and styled as a pleadings Thus, h i s p l e a d i n g s complaints. See & Minerals, Inc., ("This Court action H o w e v e r , when p o r t i o n of s a y s , he caption, and this 2012. that Murray's pleadings a c t i o n a g a i n s t PHS. complaint (Ala. erred 22, and to 15, appeal Murray says, opportunity v. August appeal argument he Inc. On Supreme the evidentiary hearing. Therefore, civil A l a . Code 1975, October the m e r i t s . a jurisdiction. that Murray i s c l a i m i n g that h i s pleadings allegations We to the Alabama 14, M u r r a y f r a m e d t h e i s s u e on on In h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , as November t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to § 12-2-7(6), on On King 518 both complaint. initiated are actually Mines So. as 2d a a Resort, 714, 718 i s committed to the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t 6 2060068 it will treat a motion pleading) grounds according Staffco, L . L . C . , 63 S o . 3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 3 - 7 4 (same). Furthermore, several i t s substance."); although PHS grounds p e r m i t t e d by Rule only legal that Murray granted, to (or other argument a s s e r t e d failed pursuant The s t a n d a r d settled. Huntsville, also of review Gibson ( A l a . C i v . App. moved v. 2010) f o r a d i s m i s s a l on 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e to s t a t e a c l a i m f o r which to Rule In see as t o any o f t h o s e grounds relief was c a n be 12(b)(6). a p p l i c a b l e t o an a p p e a l c o u r t ' s judgment g r a n t i n g a Rule well and i t s a s s i g n e d Crosslin 12(b)(6) v. 5 S o . 3d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 5 Health of a trial motion to dismiss i s Care Authority ( A l a . 2008), our supreme court stated: "In considering whether a complaint is s u f f i c i e n t to w i t h s t a n d a motion to d i s m i s s under R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a c o u r t 'must a c c e p t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t as t r u e . ' Creola L a n d D e v . , I n c . v . B e n t b r o o k e H o u s i n g , L . L . C . , 82 8 So. 2 d 2 8 5 , 288 ( A l a . 2002 ) ( e m p h a s i s omitted). '"The a p p r o p r i a t e standard of review under Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] i s w h e t h e r , when t h e allegations of the complaint are viewed most s t r o n g l y i n the pleader's f a v o r , i t appears that the p l e a d e r c o u l d p r o v e any s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s that would e n t i t l e [ i t ] to r e l i e f . " ' Smith v. N a t i o n a l Sec. I n s . C o . , 8 60 S o . 2 d 3 4 3 , 345 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g N a n c e v . M a t t h e w s , 622 S o . 2 d 2 97 , 299 (Ala. 1993)). In determining whether t h i s i s t r u e , a court considers only whether the p l a i n t i f f may 7 of 2060068 possibly prevail, not whether the p l a i n t i f f will ultimately prevail. Id. P u t a n o t h e r way, '"a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t a p p e a r s b e y o n d d o u b t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f c a n p r o v e no s e t o f f a c t s i n support of the c l a i m t h a t would e n t i t l e the p l a i n t i f f to r e l i e f . " ' Id. (emphasis added)." In argued both i t s motion that Murray negligence 5-551, A l a . w i t h the Code to dismiss failed d e t a i l and 1975. That to and state on a specificity statute appeal, claim of PHS medical r e q u i r e d under § provides: " I n any a c t i o n f o r i n j u r y , damages, o r w r o n g f u l d e a t h , whether i n c o n t r a c t or i n t o r t , a g a i n s t a h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r f o r b r e a c h of the standard of c a r e , whether r e s u l t i n g from a c t s or o m i s s i o n s i n providing health care, or the hiring, training, supervision, retention, or termination of care givers, the Alabama Medical Liability Act shall g o v e r n t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f d i s c o v e r y and a l l a s p e c t s of the a c t i o n . The p l a i n t i f f s h a l l i n c l u d e i n t h e complaint filed in the action a detailed s p e c i f i c a t i o n and f a c t u a l d e s c r i p t i o n of each act and o m i s s i o n a l l e g e d by plaintiff to render the h e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f and shall i n c l u d e when f e a s i b l e a n d a s c e r t a i n a b l e the date, t i m e , a n d p l a c e o f t h e a c t o r a c t s . The plaintiff s h a l l amend h i s c o m p l a i n t t i m e l y u p o n a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f new o r d i f f e r e n t a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s u p o n w h i c h h i s c l a i m i s based; provided, h o w e v e r , t h a t any such amendment m u s t be made a t l e a s t 90 days before trial. Any c o m p l a i n t which f a i l s to i n c l u d e such d e t a i l e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n and f a c t u a l d e s c r i p t i o n of e a c h a c t a n d o m i s s i o n s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o d i s m i s s a l f o r f a i l u r e to s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f may be granted. Any party s h a l l be p r o h i b i t e d from c o n d u c t i n g d i s c o v e r y w i t h r e g a r d t o any o t h e r a c t o r o m i s s i o n or from i n t r o d u c i n g at t r i a l e v i d e n c e of any o t h e r a c t o r omission." 8 has 6¬ 2060068 In 1993), of Mikkelsen our v. Salama, supreme c o u r t a claim brought 619 So. discussed pursuant to the 2d the 1382, 1384 pleading AMLA, (Ala. requirements stating: "[W]hen a p l a i n t i f f f i l e s a c o m p l a i n t a l l e g i n g t h a t a h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r b r e a c h e d the s t a n d a r d of care owed t o t h e p l a i n t i f f , a l t h o u g h e v e r y e l e m e n t o f t h e cause of action need not be stated with p a r t i c u l a r i t y , the p l a i n t i f f must g i v e the d e f e n d a n t h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r f a i r n o t i c e of the a l l e g e d l y n e g l i g e n t a c t and must i d e n t i f y t h e t i m e and place it occurred and the r e s u l t i n g harm. If the complaint a f f o r d s the defendant h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r f a i r n o t i c e of t h e s e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s , the c o u r t s should s t r i v e to f i n d t h a t the complaint includes t h e n e c e s s a r y ' d e t a i l e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n and factual description o f e a c h a c t and omission alleged by p l a i n t i f f to render the h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r liable to p l a i n t i f f . ' S e c t i o n 6-5-551; see Comments, R u l e 9 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] ; s e e , e . g . , K e l l e r v . S e c u r i t y F e d e r a l S a v i n g s & L o a n A s s ' n , 555 So. 2d 151 (Ala. 1 9 8 9 ) ; K a b e l v . B r a d y , 519 So. 2d 912 (Ala. 1987)." In only generally prison that in reading was that the inadequate. " [ t ] h e d e c i s i o n not his lower professional the Murray's back] judgment." necessary sustain asserted a factual claim a is a claim of of pleadings medical He together, care claims to order he in was his surgery Murray r e c e i v i n g at amended detail that does not § medical malpractice. medical malpractice 9 from any of requires to Murray against disk accepted provide 6-5-551 the complaint [for a slipped s u b s t a n t i a l departure H o w e v e r , he alleges explicitly PHS only in 2060068 the "supplemental prison complaint." health-care violated" provider t h e AMLA. asserted. Again, Therefore, pleadings failed description therefore, with PHS malpractice t o t h e AMLA c l a i m , h o w e v e r , medical care complaint, treatment pleadings pleadings "prison that Murray's and f a c t u a l PHS and that, to treat Murray appears for a slipped "'"most "to render osteosclerosis. also disk a r e not always i n h i s pleadings officials" needed" t o have t o have been d i r e c t e d t o compel at both to back. but i n considering medical PHS a n d Crosslin, treatment Mosley. "'An inmate in a state penal i n s t i t u t i o n has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o adequate medical treatment. E s t e l l e v. G a m b l e , 42 9 U.S. 97 , 97 S. C t . 2 8 5 , 50 L . E d . 2 d 2 5 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; F o u n t a i n v . S t a t e , 648 So. 2 d 5 9 1 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1994 ) . This court has further held that "[a]n evidentiary hearing i s warranted i n order f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an inmate i n a s t a t e penal institution i s 10 In h i s i n h i s lower clear, the sought strongly i n [his] favor,"'" So. 3d a t 1195, h i s r e q u e s t appears willingly t h e AMLA c l a i m was d u e t o b e d i s m i s s e d . proper 5 of the a c t of malpractice i s by act t o compel the agree that and detail sought Murray's knowingly no s p e c i f i c we states to include the requisite Murray compel "has claim an of In a d d i t i o n amended The 2060068 receiving adequate medical attention." Fountain, 648 S o . 2 d a t 592 (citations omitted).' " P e r r y [v. S t a t e Dep't o f C o r r . , ] 25 [ ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) ] . " Crouch v. A l l e n , To 76 S o . 3 d 2 6 4 , 2 6 6 the extent that d i r e c t i n g PHS t o p r o v i d e is no q u e s t i o n sought Murray's 694 S o . 2 d [ 2 4 , ] ( A l a . C i v . App. pleadings him w i t h adequate medical t h a t M u r r a y w o u l d be e n t i t l e d i f he made the proper showing to that the t r i a l order care, there to the r e l i e f In c a n be he other granted. c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n as claim. Murray also asserted medical an of proof. words, Murray s t a t e d a c l a i m f o r which r e l i e f Accordingly, sought 2011). care he n e e d e d , t h a t , i n d e l a y i n g or denying him the t h e "named defendants," which would i n c l u d e PHS, a c t e d w i t h d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e t o h i s m e d i c a l needs, causing him t o s u f f e r p a i n f o r a long period. true that a complaint that alleges that a health-care has in been negligent diagnosing c o n d i t i o n does n o t s t a t e a v a l i d u n d e r t h e E i g h t h Amendment. Inc., 919 So. 2d or treating claim of medical Iti s provider a mistreatment K i n g v . C o r r e c t i o n a l Med. 1 1 8 6 , 1192 (Ala. 11 C i v . App. medical 2005) Servs., (citing 2060068 Estelle the v. Gamble, court i n King 429 U.S. also 97, 105-06 (1976)). However, as noted: "'[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs o f p r i s o n e r s c o n s t i t u t e s t h e "unnecessary and wanton i n f l i c t i o n o f p a i n , " ' and i s a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e E i g h t h Amendment r i g h t t o b e f r e e f r o m c r u e l a n d unusual punishment. E s t e l l e v . G a m b l e , 429 U.S. 9 7 , 104 , 97 S . C t . 2 8 5 , 50 L . E d . 2 d 2 5 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . D e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e c a n be m a n i f e s t e d b y p r i s o n p e r s o n n e l i n t e n t i o n a l l y denying or d e l a y i n g access to medical care, by prison personnel interfering with prescribed treatment, or by prison doctors responding indifferently to a prisoner's medical needs. E s t e l l e , 429 U.S. a t 1 0 4 - 0 5 , 97 S . C t . 2 8 5 . " King, 919 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 9 2 Clark, was (emphasis added). Cf. Bedsole 33 S o . 3 d 9, 15 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 200 9) proper as to a physician against (summary j u d g m e n t whom a claim d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e h a d b e e n a l l e g e d when i n m a t e no evidence indicating that v. the p h y s i c i a n had of presented acted with deliberate i n d i f f e r e n c e i n rendering treatment to the inmate). Being mindful of our duty to view the allegations in Murray's p l e a d i n g s most s t r o n g l y i n h i s f a v o r and t h a t a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal o n l y when " ' " i sproper doubt t h a t the p l a i n t i f f of can prove the c l a i m that would e n t i t l e conclude that, i n alleging treatment to him, Murray i t appears no s e t o f f a c t s the p l a i n t i f f i n support to r e l i e f , " ' " t h a t PHS d e n i e d o r d e l a y e d has 12 set forth a beyond valid we medical claim of 2060068 deliberate indifference. omitted). In reaching will C r o s s l i n , 5 So. this conclusion, whether Murray ultimately whether he might possibly prevail. Murray set forth a claim against PHS, the trial valid court prevail we do on his Id. of erred 3d a t 1195 (emphasis not consider claim, However, deliberate only because indifference in dismissing that claim as well. For of the the reasons judgment set forth a b o v e , we dismissing Murray's malpractice. However, claims to compel medical PHS seeking acted with needed medical court we reverse Thompson, claim treatment. The IN judgment and medical to the asserting t r e a t m e n t and as that delaying cause i s remanded to the consistent PART; R E V E R S E D IN P.J., portion of d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e i n denying or for further proceedings AFFIRMED the a f f i r m that Pittman, with PART; AND Thomas, this opinion. REMANDED. and Moore, concur. Bryan, J . , concurs i n the result, 13 trial without writing. JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.