Ex parte Southeast Alabama Regional Healthcare Authority d/b/a Lakeview Hospital. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Shannon Ledbetter, as administratrix of the estate of Venoria Womack, deceased v. Ann M. Mottershaw, M.D., et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/29/2010 Notice: T h i s 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 Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1081636 Ex parte Southeast Alabama R e g i o n a l d/b/a Healthcare Authority Lakeview H o s p i t a l PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Shannon L e d b e t t e r , of Venoria as a d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e Womack, d e c e a s e d v. Ann M. M o t t e r s h a w , M.D., e t a l . ) 1081644 Ex p a r t e Ann M. M o t t e r s h a w , M.D. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Shannon L e d b e t t e r , as a d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f the e s t a t e o f V e n o r i a Womack, d e c e a s e d v. Ann M. M o t t e r s h a w , M.D., (Barbour C i r c u i t Court, STUART, et a l . ) CV-09-900009) Justice. Southeast Alabama Regional Healthcare A u t h o r i t y d/b/a L a k e v i e w H o s p i t a l ( " L a k e v i e w H o s p i t a l " ) a n d A n n M. M o t t e r s h a w , M.D., petition this Judge Bernard Smithart transfer Court f o r a writ of the Barbour the medical-malpractice defendants from the Clayton Court to the Eufaula issue o f mandamus action Division Division. Circuit Court i n which they o f the Barbour On M a r c h her death, Barbour 6, 2 0 0 8 , Womack are Circuit Circuit complaint Lakeview Court. Hospital, Dr. alleged that died. and A t t h e time i n the Clayton naming Mottershaw, and death. the defendants 2 Division as others, of o f the 8, 2 0 0 9 , h e r e s t a t e f i l e d Division, m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e and w r o n g f u l estate Womack On A p r i l i n the Clayton the petitions Background Venoria resided grant to the writs. Factual We ordering a defendants alleging I n the complaint, the breached the applicable 1081636, 1081644 s t a n d a r d o f c a r e when t h e y nasopharyngeal i n Barbour the 2009, Lakeview Circuit Act"), the and and action to the pursuant because occurred the to the Lakeview court to that the 1975, a part seq., with clear to the Division omissions and/or on motions to On intent venue to ("the the to § the residence of ("the in J u n e 2, 2009, the transfer, to give the county venue and the trial noting Ala. § Code 6-5-540 precedence p l a i n t i f f when t h e m a l p r a c t i c e i s a l l e g e d t o have b e e n c o m m i t t e d i n more one the asserted 2009, 6-5-546, to Barbour 1969 L i a b i l i t y Act, A M L A " ) , was or or to t r a n s f e r 16, or of 14, same g r o u n d s July dismiss the Alabama M e d i c a l 1975 the May alleged On action she action of acts care On Ala. Acts i n the E u f a u l a D i v i s i o n . A l a . Code regard County. 888, legislative of medical t o A c t . No. Eufaula Division the the dismiss Eufaula H o s p i t a l ' s motion. denied from care i n J e f f e r s o n County, Houston M o t t e r s h a w moved t o d i s m i s s t h e action et County Womack's Womack r e c e i v e d m e d i c a l stem H o s p i t a l moved Court, complaint Dr. i n complaint i n Barbour transfer Although C o u n t y , i n H o u s t o n C o u n t y , and allegations received in cancer. f a i l e d to t i m e l y diagnose than s t a t i n g t h a t § 6-5-546 o v e r r i d e s t h e c h o i c e - o f - provision in the Act. Lakeview 3 Hospital and Dr. 1081636, 1081644 Mottershaw mandamus action then each petitioned o r d e r i n g the Barbour from consolidated Circuit the Clayton Division the p e t i t i o n s this Court Court for a of w r i t i n g opinion. of Review "'In Ex parte National Security I n s u r a n c e C o . , 727 S o . 2 d 7 8 8 , 789 ( A l a . 1998), t h i s C o u r t d e s c r i b e d t h e manner o f o b t a i n i n g review of the d e n i a l of a motion f o r a change o f venue i n a c i v i l a c t i o n and the scope o f t h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w : "'"The proper method for obtaining review of a denial of a motion f o r a change o f venue i n a c i v i l action i s to petition f o r the w r i t o f mandamus. Lawler M o b i l e Homes, I n c . v . T a r v e r , 4 92 So. 2 d 2 9 7 , 302 ( A l a . 1986). 'Mandamus i s a drastic and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r legal right i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do so; (3) t h e l a c k of another a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the court.' Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . 'When we consider a mandamus petition relating to a venue r u l i n g , our scope o f r e v i e w i s t o 4 of to transfer the to the Eufaula D i v i s i o n . f o r the purpose Standard writ We one 1081636, 1081644 determine i f the t r i a l court [exceeded] i t s discretion, i . e . , whether i t exercised i t s discretion i n an a r b i t r a r y a n d capricious manner.' I d . Our review i s further limited to t h o s e f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e t h e t r i a l court. Ex p a r t e A m e r i c a n R e s o u r c e s I n s . C o . , 663 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 936 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " ' "Ex p a r t e ADT S e c . S e r v s . , 344-45 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . " Ex parte Smith Wrecker Serv., I n c . , 933 Inc., So. 2d 343, 987 S o . 2 d 5 3 4 , 536 ( A l a . 2007). Analysis The Barbour Act Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e has d i r e c t e d t h a t s e s s i o n s o f t h e Circuit divides opinion, Act shall Court Barbour be h e l d County the geographical be area "the Division." Eufaula east into two courthouses. divisions. In The this area west of a l i n e d e s c r i b e d i n t h e r e f e r r e d t o as geographical i n different "the Clayton of that Section line shall Division" and t h e be r e f e r r e d t o as 8 of the Act p r o v i d e s : "BE I T FURTHER ENACTED, T h a t w h e n e v e r a c i v i l o r c r i m i n a l c a u s e s h a l l be p e n d i n g i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o be h e l d a t C l a y t o n , i f t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l r e s i d e e a s t o f s a i d l i n e d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 6, h e r e o f , i t s h a l l b e t h e d u t y o f t h e j u d g e o f s a i d c o u r t , on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of such defendant or h i s a t t o r n e y , i n w r i t i n g , o r i n open c o u r t , t o t r a n s f e r s a i d cause t o t h e c o u r t h e l d i n E u f a u l a , t o be t h e r e t r i e d on t h e 5 1081636, 1081644 o r i g i n a l p a p e r s t h e same a s i f t h e p r o c e s s o r i g i n a l l y r e t u r n a b l e to E u f a u l a . " Thus, the Act gives Division the Eufaula Division, geographical trial court It Clayton is defendant opportunity i f boundaries to to undisputed at who have the that D i v i s i o n and the a c t i o n to that the time Womack of the Lakeview Lakeview This 546, in within and Eufaula a Mottershaw. case A l a . Code in i s brought pursuant 1975, of acts or Eufaula read s i n u s e s t h a t were the taken Georgia. t o t h e AMLA. Section provides: "In any a c t i o n f o r i n j u r y o r damages o r w r o n g f u l death whether i n c o n t r a c t or i n t o r t against a health care p r o v i d e r based on a breach of the s t a n d a r d o f c a r e , t h e a c t i o n m u s t be b r o u g h t i n t h e county wherein the act or omission c o n s t i t u t i n g the alleged breach of the standard of care by the defendant a c t u a l l y occurred. If plaintiff alleges t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s or p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent's death r e s u l t e d from a c t s or o m i s s i o n s which took p l a c e i n m o r e t h a n one c o u n t y w i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , t h e a c t i o n m u s t be b r o u g h t i n t h e c o u n t y 6 the It i s also i n the t h a t D r . M o t t e r s h a w , t h e r a d i o l o g i s t who Hospital, resides the Division. resident Hospital i s located to the moves alleged wrongful Dr. Clayton transferred Division the been the resides was t o m o g r a p h y s c a n s o f Womack's p a r a n a s a l at sued action defendant by L a k e v i e w H o s p i t a l and undisputed is of the E u f a u l a t r a n s f e r the Division omissions a had 6-5¬ 1081636, 1081644 wherein the p l a i n t i f f r e s i d e d at the time of the act or o m i s s i o n , i f the a c t i o n i s one for personal injuries, or wherein the plaintiff's decedent r e s i d e d at the time of the act or omission i f the a c t i o n i s one f o r w r o n g f u l d e a t h . I f a t a n y time p r i o r t o t h e commencement o f t h e t r i a l o f t h e a c t i o n it i s shown that the plaintiff's injuries or plaintiff's decedent's death d i d not r e s u l t from a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s w h i c h t o o k p l a c e i n m o r e t h a n one c o u n t y , on m o t i o n o f a n y d e f e n d a n t t h e c o u r t s h a l l transfer the a c t i o n to such county wherein the a l l e g e d acts or omissions a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d . For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , a c o u r t may t r a n s f e r a n y a c t i o n to any o t h e r c o u n t y where i t m i g h t have been b r o u g h t h e r e u n d e r a n d / o r may o r d e r a s e p a r a t e t r i a l as t o any c l a i m o r p a r t y . " (Emphasis added.) Lakeview of the Hospital action contend, i s proper however, its discretion the action of that determine case Circuit § Mottershaw, § i n the the trial their Barbour 6-5-546, 8 of Circuit venue Court. They motions scope of seeking transfer of the to the E u f a u l a Division they say, § 8 of the Act A l a . Code 1975, cannot of the Barbour Circuit According to Lakeview the that case to the E u f a u l a D i v i s i o n . division tried. concede c o u r t exceeded Court because, of t h i s i n which s h o u l d be Mottershaw the C l a y t o n D i v i s i o n mandates t r a n s f e r that Dr. i n denying from the Barbour maintain and Act 7 applies to be used Court Hospital They and determine to the Dr. the 1081636, 1081644 appropriate division requires that Division to the Eufaula The action this f o r venue and t h e p l a i n language estate i s the Clayton of § decedent resided that the only 6-5-546, A l a . Code i n the Clayton be c o n d u c t e d Code transferred Division. i n the Clayton 8 o f t h e A c t h a s no f i e l d Ala. be 1975, w h i c h from the Clayton Division. contends language trial action of § 8 venue p r o p e r According for this to the estate, the 1975, and t h e f a c t t h a t the D i v i s i o n mandates the Division. of operation that I t argues in light of § that § 6-5-552, states: "This a r t i c l e applies to a l lactions against h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r s b a s e d on a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s a c c r u i n g a f t e r J u n e 11, 1987, and as t o s u c h c a u s e s of action, shall supersede any inconsistent p r o v i s i o n of law." Section part, t h a t when t h e a l l e g e d a c t s the death one county, brought the 6-5-546, A l a . Code acts of the p l a i n t i f f ' s then the based occurred on that i n the county i n which the decedent or omissions. divisions. i n pertinent or omissions that r e s u l t e d i n decedent action i n more death resided I t provides i n which the c i r c u i t f o r proper 8 venue than must be at time of The l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n c l u d e AMLA a p r o v i s i o n f o r c o u n t i e s in 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n the courts only s i t as to 1081636, 1081644 counties. "'When [ a ] s t a t u t o r y p r o n o u n c e m e n t i s c l e a r a n d n o t susceptible to a d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , judicial duty of pronouncement.'" 320 court to abide Macon v. H u n t s v i l l e (Ala.1990)). venue divisions would Because the language i n a county, within a but county, makes no treating Court "county" word this in § 6-5-546 t o i n c l u d e additional requires where words into only that the decedent Children's Hosp. 2005)(recognizing action must omission ... be to extend the the estate's resided of that "§ brought actually in clear 613 S o . 2 d 318, 567 the occurred.' as county of the and t o r e a d Therefore, § 6-5-546 i n the county County. See Ex parte So. 1, 7 (Ala. requires county in a "division" 931 1343, meaning the p l a i n 1 2d f o r venue division Barbour 6-5-546 So. i n § 6-5-546 p r o v i d e s a c t i o n be f i l e d Alabama, T h e e s t a t e r e l i e s on 3 - 7 ( d ) , A l a . Code 1975, d e f e n d a n t s ; however, t h i s of § 6 - 3 - 7 ( d ) , A l a . Code & J o n e s , L L P , 924 S o . 2 d 1 statute. that provision a require by Utils., ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ( q u o t i n g P a r k e r v. H i l l i a r d , 1346 for a i t i s the paramount 2d only wherein (Emphasis that the 'the act or added.)"). t h i s C o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 6relating t o venue for corporate C o u r t has l i m i t e d i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 1975. Ex p a r t e Haynes Downard A n d r a 687 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . 9 1081636, 1081644 Because the Barbour County, the Act, action general rules apply in proper. We has reject filed in the estate's by in argument the question county m u s t be brought, the Act, County the which case § 8 of that is § 8 of the 1975. i n which Act Because division the application which in venue division of of § of 8 § a of Barbour i s p r o p e r , i s not i n c o n s i s t e n t with AMLA. action materials before i n Barbour further indicate recognized the address v e n u e o f an a c t i o n The to does county, division § 6-5-546, A l a . Code address action proper in this which 6-5-546 d o e s n o t an the as t o v e n u e , determining superseded been was have that the that venue action Eufaula requires County us was indicate proper. Hospital i n Barbour County transferred from the materials and was the filing Dr. t r a n s f e r of the a c t i o n to and Dr. refused Mottershaw Clayton us Mottershaw moved Division Because to § 8 i n the E u f a u l a D i v i s i o n transfer have 10 before the to the E u f a u l a D i v i s i o n at the the court of proper but D i v i s i o n pursuant to § 8 of the A c t . resides Hospital The Lakeview r e q u e s t o f a d e f e n d a n t who trial that the action, established a and Lakeview clear legal 1081636, right 1081644 to Division have this action to the Eufaula transferred from the Clayton Division. Conclusion Based on M o t t e r s h a w have action grant the established transferred these foregoing, a clear to the Eufaula petitions to Lakeview Circuit Court Division and i s s u e transfer to the Eufaula this Hospital legal right Division. writs t o have Dr. this Therefore, ordering action and from we the Barbour the Clayton Bolin, Parker, Division. 1081636 PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 1081644 -- P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Cobb, Murdock, C . J . , and Lyons, Woodall, a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 11 Smith,

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.