Case Title: Ex Parte Coosa Valley Health Care, Inc.

Citation: 789 So. 2d 208

Docket Number: 1990702

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
789 So. 2d 208 (2000)
Ex parte COOSA VALLEY HEALTH CARE, INC.
(Re S.W. Roper v. Coosa Valley Health Care, Inc., d/b/a Coosa Valley Health Care, et al.)
1990702.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 29, 2000.
*209 Thomas R. Elliott, Jr., Paige Elliott-Pinson, and J. Michael Keel of London & Yancey, L.L.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.
James L. Wilkes II and Timothy C. McHugh of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Tampa, Florida; and Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Birmingham, for respondent.
BROWN, Justice.
Coosa Valley Health Care, Inc. ("Coosa Valley"), one of the defendants in a civil action pending in the Etowah Circuit Court, petitions for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Donald W. Stewart to vacate or amend his discovery orders of October 27, 1999, and December 27, 1999, compelling Coosa Valley to produce certain information and materials requested by the plaintiff. Coosa Valley contends that discovery of this information and these materials would contravene § 6-5-551, *210 Ala.Code 1975, a portion of the Medical Liability Act of 1987.
In 1991, after experiencing complications from a stroke, Lucille A. Roper became a resident of a nursing-home facility operated by Coosa Valley. Mrs. Roper resided at the Coosa Valley facility from 1991 until February 15, 1999, when she was discharged to Gadsden Regional Hospital. On March 1, 1999, Mrs. Roper was admitted to McGuffey's Nursing Home. McGuffey's Nursing Home is not affiliated with Coosa Valley. Mrs. Roper resided at McGuffey's until March 23, 1999, when she was again admitted to Gadsden Regional Hospital; she died at that hospital on March 24, 1999. At the time of her death, Mrs. Roper was 91 years old.
On March 22, 1999, two days before her death, Mrs. Roper, acting by and through her son, S.W. Roper, sued Coosa Valley. The complaint described a number of fictitiously named defendants. Following Mrs. Roper's death, her son filed an amended complaint, adding McGuffey's and Gadsden Regional Hospital as defendants. On September 24, 1999, the trial court ordered that S.W. Roper be substituted as plaintiff in this action, and a second amended complaint was filed on October 28, 1999, to effectuate this change.
The complaint alleged, among other things, negligence in the treatment Mrs. Roper received while a resident of the Coosa Valley facility. The complaint alleged that Coosa Valley had provided Mrs. Roper negligent care, and it alleged the following, based on that alleged negligent care:
As part of the negligence claims, Roper also asserted that Coosa Valley had been negligent in hiring its employees and that it had failed to adequately train and supervise them.
Count one of the complaint alleges that Coosa Valley and certain fictitiously named *211 defendants were negligent, wanton, or reckless in the following respects:
The plaintiff sought discovery from Coosa Valley, by serving on it interrogatories and requests for production. As to some of the requests and interrogatories, Coosa Valley provided the requested discovery, but it filed objections to others, claiming that they violated § 6-5-551, Ala.Code 1975; § 22-21-8; the work-product doctrine; the attorney-client privilege; and general principles of relevancy, materiality, and overbreadth. On July 20, 1999, the plaintiff moved to compel discovery. After conducting a hearing, the trial court entered an order, on October 27, 1999, stating:
Coosa Valley moved the trial court to reconsider its order of October 27, 1999. After conducting another hearing, in which Mr. Roper argued that this Court's decision in Ex parte McCollough, 747 So. 2d 887 (Ala.1999), mandated that Coosa Valley furnish the requested discovery, the trial court denied Coosa Valley's motion to reconsider.
*216 On January 18, 2000, Coosa Valley filed this petition for the writ of mandamus, requesting that this Court direct the trial court to "vacate the Order or strike those paragraphs and amend the Order to reflect same, thus relieving [Coosa Valley]as is required by lawfrom compliance with Paragraphs One (1), Five (5), and Seven (7) of the Order." Coosa Valley does not request relief from paragraphs two, three, four, and six, of the trial court's order. Thus, we will not review those portions of the order.
Rule 26, Ala.R.Civ.P., governs the discovery of information in civil actions. When a dispute arises over discovery matters, the resolution of the dispute is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. "Discovery matters are within the trial court's sound discretion, and its ruling on those matters will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion and substantial harm to the appellant." Wolff v. Colonial Bank, 612 So. 2d 1146, 1146 (Ala. 1992) (citations omitted). See also Justice Maddox's dissent in Ex parte Hicks, 727 So. 2d 23, 33 (Ala.1998); the holding in the majority opinion in Hicks was overruled by Ex parte Henry, 770 So. 2d 76, 81 (Ala. 2000).
The writ of mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, to be issued only when there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court. Ex parte Horton, 711 So. 2d 979, 983 (Ala.1998) (citing Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So. 2d 501 (Ala. 1993)); Ex parte Alfab, Inc., 586 So. 2d 889, 891 (Ala.1991) (citing Martin v. Loeb & Co., 349 So. 2d 9 (Ala.1977)). However, "`[t]he right sought to be enforced by mandamus must be clear and certain with no reasonable basis for controversy about the right to relief,'" and "`[t]he writ will not issue where the right in question is doubtful.'" Ex parte Bozeman, 420 So. 2d 89, 91 (Ala.1982) (quoting Ex parte Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 397 So. 2d 98, 102 (Ala. 1981)). "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)).
Coosa Valley first contends that the complaint contains only general allegations of wrongdoing and, thus, does not comply with the specificity requirements of § 6-5-551, Ala.Code 1975. We disagree. It is evident from a reading of the excerpt we have quoted above from the complaint that the plaintiff's allegations are more specific than the allegations this Court held to be sufficient in Ex parte McCollough, 747 So. 2d  at 888-89. See also Mikkelsen v. Salama, 619 So. 2d 1382 (Ala. 1993); Baptist Med. Ctr. Montclair v. Wilson, 618 So. 2d 1335 (Ala.1993). Moreover, the complaint alleges ongoing breaches of the standard of care, including allowing the development of conditions that develop over a extended period, such as malnutrition, dehydration, bedsores, and pressure sores. Thus, the complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action. However, the plaintiff remains under an obligation to "amend his complaint timely upon ascertainment of new or different acts or omissions upon which his claim is based." § 6-5-551.
Coosa Valley next argues that § 6-5-551 prevents the plaintiff Mr. Roper from discovering evidence of other acts or omissions. Coosa Valley contends that the discovery Mr. Roper may seek is limited to information and materials related to the specific acts or omissions alleged in the complaint, citing Ex parte Northport Health Service, Inc., 682 So. 2d 52 (Ala. 1996), as support for its claim. Mr. Roper argues that he is entitled to discovery of the information he requested that may relate to other acts or omissions because, he argues, the rule prohibiting such discovery does not apply to the claims alleging that Coosa Valley negligently, recklessly, and wantonly screened, hired, trained, supervised, and retained its employees. He cites Ex parte McCollough, supra, 747 So. 2d 887, arguing that a claim alleging negligent hiring, training, and supervision is "separate and distinct" from a claim alleging a "breach of the standard of care." See § 6-5-548, Ala.Code 1975.
Coosa Valley recognizes that its contention is contrary to our decision in Ex parte McCollough, supra, but argues that that decisionwhich held that evidence similar to that sought in Ex parte Northport Health Service was not pattern-and-practice evidence, but was, instead, discoverable as necessary for the plaintiff to prove a "systemic-failure" claimwas a departure from the well-reasoned analysis of its predecessors and the plain intent of the Legislature. In effect, what Coosa Valley seeks in this mandamus petition is an overruling of this Court's decision in Ex parte McCollough.
This Court's decision in Ex parte McCollough recognized that an action against a health-care provider alleging negligent hiring, training, and supervision is an "action... for breach of the standard of care" and is thus governed by § 6-5-551; however, we concluded that the requested information was "discoverable within the terms of § 6-5-551." 747 So. 2d  at 892. Since we decided McCollough, the Legislature has amended § 6-5-551. That section, as amended, provides (with some of the amendatory language emphasized):
(Emphasis added.)
The amendment to § 6-5-551 became effective May 9, 2000. Although Mr. Roper's cause of action accrued, and this action was commenced, before the effective *218 date of the amendment, "that amendment applies to all pending actions because it is remedial in nature and contains no clear language indicating that the Legislature did not intend it to have a retroactive effect." Ex parte Ridgeview Health Care Ctr., Inc., 786 So. 2d 1112, 1114 n. 1 (Ala. 2000).
This Court recently addressed this same issue in Ex parte Ridgeview Health Care Center:
786 So. 2d  at 1116-17.
Based on our decision in Ex parte Ridgeview Health Care Center, we conclude that paragraphs five and seven of the order dated October 27, 1999, were too broad. Mr. Roper is entitled to discovery of information involving the provision of care and/or services to Lucille Roper, but not to other persons. Thus, to the extent that in paragraphs five and seven the trial court compelled Coosa Valley to produce materials involving persons other than Lucille Roper, the trial court abused its discretion. Thus, Coosa Valley has shown a clear legal right to have those two paragraphs vacated to the extent they require production of information regarding the care and treatment of anyone other than Lucille Roper.[4]
*219 With regard to paragraph one of the October 27, 1999, order, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in compelling Coosa Valley to produce a list of its employees. As Mr. Roper explained, the purpose for requesting a list of employees was "to identify all individuals who either witnessed or had the opportunity to witness the circumstances, events or occurrences, [that were] relevant to the facts and issues in the instant case." Given the allegations contained in Mr. Roper's claims of "systemic failure," not all of the claims involve care by medical personnel, and, thus, it is likely that the employees to which some of those claims relate would not be named in Lucille Roper's medical records. Thus, for Coosa Valley to produce a list of employees who worked at its nursing facility during the last four years Lucille Roper resided there would be a reasonable way for Mr. Roper to investigate and prove his claims of negligence, wantonness, willfulness, and/or breach of a contractual duty by Coosa Valley to provide adequate hiring, training, staffing, etc., of its personnel. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Coosa Valley to furnish the information contained in interrogatory number two.
Coosa Valley contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering it to furnish the relevant documentation for a four-year period, as opposed to a two-year period. Coosa Valley argues that the trial court ignored the applicable two-year statute of limitations, § 6-5-482, Ala.Code 1975. Its argument appears to be that because Mr. Roper could not assert a claim based on events occurring before March 22, 1997, he is barred from discovering any information or documents relating to events occurring before that date. Given that Mr. Roper's claim was one of "systemic failure," the applicable statute of limitations is not dispositive of questions regarding the scope or propriety of his discovery requests. Because this case is before us on a mandamus petition, the materials presented for our review are limited; thus, we are unable to determine precisely when Mrs. Roper's medical problems began. Based on the pleadings, it is obvious that her condition deteriorated over an extended period of time; thus, we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow discovery for the four-year period preceding Mrs. Roper's removal from Coosa Valley's facility.
Coosa Valley also argues that the information at issue was not discoverable because, Coosa Valley says, it is "quality-assurance information" and is therefore privileged under § 22-21-8, Ala.Code 1975. However, as this Court noted in Ex parte St. Vincent's Hospital, 652 So. 2d 225, 230 (Ala.1994), the burden of proving that a privilege exists and proving the prejudicial effect of disclosing the information is on the party asserting the privilege. Coosa Valley has offered no evidence to show that the information sought was maintained for purposes of quality assurance or for any other purpose covered by § 22-21-8. Compare Ex parte Qureshi, 768 So. 2d 374 (Ala.2000); Ex parte Krothapalli, 762 So. 2d 836 (Ala.2000) (in each of those cases, the petitioner submitted evidence in the form of affidavits establishing that the information sought by the *220 discovery requests was privileged). Accordingly, Coosa Valley did not meet its burden of proving that the information sought by the discovery requests was privileged.
To the extent paragraphs five and seven of the October 27, 1999, order require Coosa Valley to disclose information related to persons other than Lucille Roper, the circuit court is directed to vacate those paragraphs. To the extent of the relief granted by the preceding sentence, the petition is granted. Otherwise, it is denied.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, LYONS, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
JOHNSTONE, J., concurs specially.
SEE, J., concurs in the result.
JOHNSTONE, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in the scholarly main opinion. While § 6-5-551, Ala.Code 1975, as amended effective May 9, 2000, does not prohibit the discovery or proof of acts or omissions against victims other than the plaintiff, this legislation does require that an act or omission against another victim must be pleaded with "a detailed specification and factual description" before it can be discovered or proved. This legislative mandate would seem to require, as a necessary part of the "detailed specification and factual description" of the act or omission, an identification of both the alleged wrongdoer and the alleged victim, either by name or by reasonably certain generic description, in order to distinguish that particular act or omission from others of the same kind. While the pleading in the case before us is obviously sufficient in its allegations of wrongful acts or omissions against Mrs. Roper, the pleadings do not isolate any other particular act or omission by any particular identified wrongdoer against any particular identified victim other than Mrs. Roper.
[1]  Plaintiff's Interrogatory number 2 reads as follows:

"Please identify fully all individuals who were employed [by] COOSA VALLEY HEALTH CARE CENTER during the following period of time: the last four (4) years of the residency of LUCILLE A. ROPER; state whether each individual provided any care or services to LUCILLE A. ROPER, and state whether each individual is currently an employee of COOSA VALLEY HEALTH CARE CENTER or COOSA VALEY HEALTH CARE, INC.
"The purpose of this interrogatory is to identify all individuals who either witnessed or had the opportunity to witness the circumstances, events or occurrences, which are relevant to the facts and issues in the instant case. This interrogatory is intended to include any caregiver or other employee, including dietary workers, laundry workers, maintenance person or any other person whatsoever."
[2]  The plaintiff's requests for production numbered 6 through 10 read as follows:

"REQUEST NO. 6: Please produce complete and legible copies of all documents pertaining to investigations relating to alleged abuse, mistreatment and/or neglect of residents or to the health, safety, and/or welfare of residents which have been initiated against Defendant and/or which Defendant conducted during the last four (4) years of Plaintiff's [i.e., Mrs. Roper's] residency.
"REQUEST NO. 7: Please produce complete and legible copies of each and every letter, note, memoranda [sic] or other document and communication received by Defendant relating to complaints about resident care, mistreatment or abuse by nursing personnel during the last four (4) years of Plaintiff's residency.
"REQUEST NO. 8: Please produce complete and legible copies of all disciplinary reports, memoranda, notes, letters or other documents and communication relating to Physician and nursing personnel working the day, evening, and night shifts during the last four (4) years of Plaintiff's residency.
"REQUEST NO. 9: Please produce complete and legible copies of any and all employee complaints communicated to Defendant, including all complaints communicated to Defendant by memoranda, letter, note or any other form of document or communication during the last four (4) years of Plaintiff's residency.
"REQUEST NO. 10: Please produce complete and legible copies of all nursing personnel evaluations during the last four (4) years of Plaintiff's residency."
[3]  Plaintiff's request for production number 30(4) requested "All work schedules and time sheets showing the identity, number (quantity), and classification of any nursing personnel, as such term is defined above, for each tour of duty, including relief or pool personnel who worked on any unit or wing in COOSA VALLEY HEALTH CARE where LUCILLE A. ROPER resided during the last four (4) years of her residency."
[4]  Coosa Valley also claims that the order compelling discovery must be vacated because it requires the disclosure of confidential patient information, in violation of various state and federal regulations. Because our decision limits discovery to materials involving only the care and treatment of Lucille Roper, this argument is moot.