Ex parte Hazel Stutts. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Hazel M. Stutts, individually, and Hazel M. Stutts, by Virginia L. Gester, her attorney-in-fact v. Joshua D. Vacik, M.D, et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:06/30/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , 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 1090875 Ex p a r t e H a z e l Stutts PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : H a z e l M. S t u t t s , i n d i v i d u a l l y , and H a z e l M. by V i r g i n i a L. G e s t e r , h e r a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t v. J o s h u a D. V a c i k , M.D., (Colbert C i r c u i t Court, BOLIN, et a l . ) CV-07-102) Justice. PETITION DENIED. Woodall, Smith, NO OPINION. M u r d o c k , a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Stutts, 1090875 Cobb, C . J . , and Lyons, Stuart, 2 and P a r k e r , JJ., dissent. 1090875 LYONS, J u s t i c e (dissenting). Hazel S t u t t s p e t i t i o n s t h i s Court directing the trial judge to underlying medical-malpractice Stutts's petition, without f o r a w r i t o f mandamus recuse himself litigation. an o p i n i o n . from The C o u r t I must the denies respectfully dissent. On A p r i l 17, 2007, S t u t t s s u e d J o s h u a D. V a c i k , M.D., a n d M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t e s o f t h e S h o a l s , P.C. ("MAS"), a l l e g i n g that Dr. the Vacik, standard timely temporal while of care diagnose acting on behalf o f MAS, violated r e q u i r e d o f him by n e g l i g e n t l y f a i l i n g and t r e a t arteritis. permanent b l i n d n e s s a c o n d i t i o n i n h e r e y e known Stutts as a r e s u l t claimed that she of the alleged to as suffered negligence. The d e p o s i t i o n o f D r . V a c i k i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s from S t u t t s ' s lawyer and r e s p o n s e s from Dr. V a c i k : "Q. A l l r i g h t . And back d u r i n g t h e time p e r i o d t h a t you were treating Mrs. S t u t t s , y o u were affiliated with Medical Associates of the S h o a l s , P.C.? "A. That's c o r r e c t . "Q. Okay. A n d y o u ' r e a member o f t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l corporation? "A. Yes, sir. 3 1090875 "Q. Who are the other p r i n c i p a l s i n t h a t P.C.? "A. Jack McClendon, Brad McAnnalley, P o u n d e r s , and D o n a l d C o n k l i n . " Randy A c c o r d i n g t o r e c o r d s from the Alabama S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e , Dr. Jack for and was his f u r t h e r noted that McClendon is i n c o r p o r a t o r of MAS. The trial judge also registered disclosed primary-care physician. his the The that trial Dr. judge agent McClendon r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s p r i m a r y - c a r e p h y s i c i a n w o u l d have no e f f e c t on h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y t o s e r v e as t h e j u d g e i n t h i s c a s e . Stutts filed a motion a l l e g i n g t h a t the t r i a l business and seeking the of Dr. financial Vacik judge's recusal, judge's p r i m a r y - c a r e p h y s i c i a n "has a interest l i t i g a t i o n " and t h a t f o r t h e t r i a l trial trial and MAS in the outcome of this judge t o p r e s i d e over the "would necessarily q u e s t i o n the i m p a r t i a l i t y of [ t h e t r i a l judge]." call The into motion was b a s e d on Canon 3 . C . ( 1 ) , A l a b a m a Canons o f J u d i c i a l E t h i c s , w h i c h p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "A j u d g e s h o u l d d i s q u a l i f y himself required in a by questioned proceeding law " or his i n which his disqualification impartiality might reasonably is be F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , the t r i a l judge e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n t o r e c u s e and s t a t i n g , among o t h e r 4 1090875 things, " [ t ] h a t there has satisfaction court financial of the b e e n no i n t e r e s t i n the I n Ex parte Duncan, t h i s Court s t a t e d the showing to the that [Dr. McClendon] outcome o f t h i s 638 So. 2d reasonable has any case." 1332, 1334 f o l l o w i n g concerning (Ala. 1994), Canon 3 . C . ( 1 ) : " U n d e r Canon 3 ( C ) ( 1 ) , A l a b a m a Canons o f J u d i c i a l E t h i c s , r e c u s a l i s r e q u i r e d when ' f a c t s a r e shown w h i c h make i t r e a s o n a b l e f o r members o f t h e p u b l i c or a party, or counsel opposed to q u e s t i o n the i m p a r t i a l i t y of the judge.' Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So. 2d 60, 61 (Ala. 1982) . Specifically, t h e Canon 3(C) t e s t i s : 'Would a person of o r d i n a r y prudence i n the judge's p o s i t i o n k n o w i n g a l l o f t h e f a c t s known t o t h e j u d g e f i n d t h a t there i s a reasonable b a s i s f o r q u e s t i o n i n g the J u d g e ' s i m p a r t i a l i t y ? ' M a t t e r o f S h e f f i e l d , 465 So. 2d 350, 356 ( A l a . 1984). The question i s not w h e t h e r t h e Judge was i m p a r t i a l i n f a c t , b u t w h e t h e r another p e r s o n , knowing a l l of the circumstances, might reasonably q u e s t i o n the judge's i m p a r t i a l i t y - ¬ w h e t h e r t h e r e i s an a p p e a r a n c e o f i m p r o p r i e t y . " ( E m p h a s i s added.) I t b l i n k s r e a l i t y t o deny t h a t Dr. M c C l e n d o n , a member o f MAS, has any litigation. financial We existence or assuming that have limits any proceeding is fully favorable to the interest nothing of any judgment covered financial in before insurance that by might the us to be insurance, of establish coverage, c o n d i t i o n o f MAS 5 outcome but, entered a this the even in this scenario most i f a judgment i s 1090875 rendered against i t , the prospect of increased by MAS o r t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n o f MAS's c o v e r a g e which Dr. McClendon, as a premiums owed are matters i n member of MAS, is whether the t r i a l directly interested. We do n o t h e r e d e a l fact impartial. impropriety. We with look The h y p o t h e t i c a l evaluating the existence the judge's trial physician has a cognizant to f o r the person hearing financial a case appearance of ordinary o f t h e appearance of prudence of impropriety i n i n which i n t e r e s t would is in his personal of necessity be of the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the exposure o f the p h y s i c i a n the risk coverage only judge of increased f o r h i s practice w o u l d have t o be l i v i n g premiums group. or the c a n c e l l a t i o n of This hypothetical person i n a vacuum i f he o r she was unaware of t h e s e n s i t i v i t y of m e d i c a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s t o t h e i n c r e a s i n g costs of l i a b i l i t y - i n s u r a n c e unavailability. to require coverage or the r i s k s of i t s I would g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n and i s s u e t h e w r i t the t r i a l judge t o recuse Cobb, C . J . , c o n c u r s . 6 himself.

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.