Title: Lloyd Noland Hosp. v. Durham

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

906 So. 2d 157 (2005)
LLOYD NOLAND HOSPITAL
v.
Janann DURHAM.
1030422.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 7, 2005.
*159 Robert E. Cooper, Deborah Alley Smith, and Jennifer W. Thompson of Christian & Small, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant.
Shay Samples, Ralph D. Cook, and Bruce J. McKee of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, for appellee.
W. Stancil Starnes, Sybil Vogtle Abbot, and Ashley E. Watkins of Starnes & Atchison, LLP, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Medical Association of the State of Alabama.
PER CURIAM.
Lloyd Noland Hospital ("the Hospital") appeals from the denial of its motion for a new trial, following a judgment entered on *160 a jury verdict in favor of Janann Durham, in Durham's medical-malpractice action against the Hospital and the denial of its motion to alter or amend the judgment as to the payment of future damages. We affirm.
On May 29, 1996, Durham was admitted to the Hospital on the orders of Dr. John Edwards, her gynecologist and primary surgeon, to undergo two surgical procedures during one operation: (1) a "total vaginal hysterectomy and anterior colporrhaphy" ("the first procedure"), and (2) a "RAZ retropubic suspension" ("the second procedure"). Her specific admission orders were handwritten by Dr. George McGrady, Dr. Edwards's partner. Dr. McGrady and Dr. Edwards were partners in the "Henderson & Walton Obstetrical Gynecological Group" ("the Group"), which, pursuant to a contract with the Hospital, provided gynecological care and treatment for patients at the Hospital as "consultants."
The admission orders did not prescribe a preoperative antibiotic. The nursing staff of the Hospital included the admission orders with Durham's chart but did not place with her chart any supplementary, or "standing," orders. Consequently, Durham received no preoperative antibiotic.
Dr. Edwards and Dr. McGrady performed the first procedure; the second procedure was performed by Dr. Leon Hamrick, Jr., a urologist. After the surgery, Durham was dismissed from the Hospital. Subsequently, she developed a postoperative infection that required her to be rehospitalized and to undergo extensive treatment.
On May 27, 1998, Durham sued Dr. Edwards, Dr. Hamrick, and the Hospital. The complaint, as finally amended, alleged, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.) By a joint stipulation, Dr. Edwards and Dr. Hamrick were dismissed from the action, and the case proceeded to trial solely against the Hospital.
A jury trial began on July 7, 2003. On July 15, 2003, after the jury was charged, but before it retired to deliberate, the trial judge designated C.W. as the alternate juror, stating: "She will have to go in my office [while the jury deliberates] or somewhere or one of the conference rooms or something." The jury then deliberated for approximately an hour on July 15 and throughout the following day. On July 17, one of the jurors failed to appear for jury duty. The court was informed by the remaining jurors that the absent juror had *161 left the state to attend a family reunion. The following discussions then transpired among the court and counsel:
(Emphasis added.) Alternate juror C.W. was then brought before the court and counsel, was sworn in, and was questioned, first by the court, apparently using some of the written questions the Hospital's counsel had previously proposed to be put to her, and then by the Hospital's counsel. C.W. denied that anyone had talked with her while she was in a conference room awaiting being recalled to the jury, other than another circuit judge who had entered the conference room to inquire if she needed any reading material. According to C.W., she and the judge had no discussion about the case, and no one else said anything to her that would influence her thinking or feelings about the case one way or another. She believed that she could be an impartial juror; that she could weigh the evidence and testimony and be fair to both sides; and that she could render a true and impartial verdict. She affirmed that, although she had been apart from the other jurors for a day and a half, she could rejoin them and interact with them and freely exchange ideas about the evidence. She stated that she was ready to accept her responsibility of participating *163 in the jury process and confirmed that in her discussions with the other jurors she could tell them what she thought about the evidence and then render a verdict based on that evidence.
When there were no further questions to be put to C.W., she was instructed to prepare to rejoin the jury and to receive additional instructions. Thereafter, in her absence, the proceeding continued as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
Finally, the judge assembled the reconstituted jury and instructed it as follows:
There were no objections to this supplemental charge.
After deliberating for two hours, the jury returned a verdict, awarding Durham $333,120 for past compensatory damages and $432,800 for future compensatory damages, for a total of $765,920. The court entered a judgment on that verdict.
The Hospital moved for a new trial, or, in the alternative, to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. Specifically, the Hospital *164 contended (1) that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, (2) that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a mistrial, and (3) that the judgment entered "did not conform to the requirement[] of § 6-5-543(b), Code of Alabama 1975, . . . . that payments for any amount of future damages be made in periodic payments." The trial court denied the motion by an order handwritten on the case action summary sheet, stating:
From the denial of that motion, the Hospital appeals, making the same three arguments asserted in its posttrial motion.
The Hospital contends that the trial court erred in replacing the absent juror with the alternate juror after the jury had begun deliberating. It first insists that Ala. R. Civ. P. 47(b) prohibited the substitution of C.W. for the absent juror. Rule 47(b) provides, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.) The Hospital argues that "while Rule 47 allows for the substitution of alternate jurors for jurors who become unable to perform their duties before the jury retires to deliberate, it makes no similar provision for the utilization of alternate jurors after the jury begins its deliberations." (Hospital's brief, at 27.) Thus, it insists, "[t]he substitution of an alternate juror for a regular juror on the third day of deliberations is contrary to the express dictates of Rule 47." (Hospital's brief, at 28.)
Durham, however, correctly points out that the Hospital first apprised the trial court of the alleged prohibition to the substitution in Rule 47(b) in its motion for a new trial. Consequently, she argues, the Hospital waived its objection to the substitution. We agree in part.
"It is well established that this Court will not `reverse a trial court's judgment based on arguments not presented to [it].'" Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. v. Heilman, 876 So. 2d 1111, 1124 (Ala.2003) (quoting Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 864 So. 2d 1100, 1104 (Ala.Civ.App.2002)). See also Pate v. Rollison Logging Equip., Inc., 628 So. 2d 337, 343 n. 2 (Ala.1993) (the trial court will not be placed in error on the basis of issues never presented to it); Smith v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 537 So. 2d 463 (Ala.1988). "When the grounds for an objection are stated, this impliedly waives all other grounds for the objection to the evidence; and the objecting party cannot predicate error upon the ground not stated in the trial court, but raised for the first time on appeal." Nichols v. Southeast Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 576 So. 2d 660, 662 (Ala.1991) (citations omitted).
Moreover, a ground offered in support of an objection to a procedural defect in the trial, asserted for the first time in a motion for a new trial, presents nothing for review. Ex parte Eaton, 675 *165 So. 2d 1300 (Ala.1996). "[A] party cannot allow a trial to be conducted, and then, on a motion for a new trial, raise arguments that should have been presented during trial." 675 So. 2d  at 1301. Rush v. Eason Plumbing & Elec. Contractors, Inc., 361 So. 2d 516, 518 (Ala.1978) ("A motion for a new trial cannot replace a timely objection or exception which could, and should, properly be made during the trial."). Thus, the Hospital cannot rely on Rule 47(b) as a ground for a new trial.
Therefore, we agree that the trial court's denial of the Hospital's motion for a mistrial cannot be deemed erroneous on the basis of Rule 47(b). The Hospital argued other grounds to the trial judge, however, and is entitled to rely on them as bases for urging that the judge erred in overruling its motion for a mistrial, assuming that it has properly argued them before this Court. Any grounds not argued to the trial court, but urged for the first time on appeal, cannot be considered. Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So. 2d 301 (Ala.2003); Lee v. YES of Russellville, Inc., 858 So. 2d 250 (Ala.2003); and Crutcher v. Wendy's of North Alabama, Inc., 857 So. 2d 82 (Ala.2003).
The Hospital asserted to the trial judge that a mistrial was required because the insertion of an alternate onto the jury after lengthy deliberations by the jury would put the Hospital "at an extreme disadvantage" and that it was "the dynamic of the deliberation process" that prompted its objection "to substituting the alternate at this late point in the deliberations." Further, after the questioning of C.W. had concluded, the Hospital renewed its motion for a mistrial "on the grounds that we previously cited and the additional grounds that there was apparently lengthy conversation [with the other circuit judge] at the time when [C.W.] had just been identified as the alternate and excused from jury service." Counsel for the Hospital argued that it would be "unduly prejudicial" to the Hospital to allow C.W. to enter the jury deliberations "at this late date under these circumstances" and expressed the view that "despite the Court's efforts to articulate what [C.W.'s] responsibility is with regard to entering the jury deliberations at this point, I do not think that the Court can adequately safeguard the interest of the [Hospital] by permitting [C.W.] to enter the deliberations." Notably, none of these "grounds" assert that it would be per se procedurally impermissible to allow a substitution of an alternate in the middle of a jury's deliberations, and no contention was made that such a mid-deliberations substitution would violate any procedural rule, statute, or provision of the Alabama Constitution. Rather, the reasons cited to the judge were all related to the stage of the deliberations at which a substitution of an alternate for a juror would take place and expressed concerns about the conversation between C.W. and the other circuit judge. Finally, counsel for the Hospital expressed reservations as to whether the trial court's efforts to articulate to C.W. what her responsibilities were with regard to entering the jury deliberations were adequate to safeguard the Hospital's interests.
On appeal, the Hospital argues, in addition to the effect of Rule 47(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., that "[t]o allow an alternate juror to be placed on the jury after the jury ha[s] deliberated for more than an entire day ... is fundamentally unfair and undermines the dynamics of the deliberation process." (Hospital's brief, p. 26.) The Hospital also argues that "upholding a post-submission substitution would be contrary to § 11 of the Alabama Constitution[,] which requires a jury of 12 jurors and a unanimous verdict." We cannot entertain this latter argument because it was *166 never presented to the trial court. Lastly, the Hospital argues that no provision of Alabama law expressly allows for the substitution of an alternate juror for a regular juror once deliberations have begun, but it does not argue conversely that any provision of Alabama law disallows such a procedure, other than the procedurally unavailing references to Rule 47 and § 11 of the Alabama Constitution.
We agree with the Hospital that the appellate courts of this State have never addressed the issue whether such a mid-deliberations substitution of an alternate juror is permissible. In Cork v. State, 433 So. 2d 959 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), a regular juror was discharged immediately before the case was submitted to the jury for deliberations, and an alternate substituted. The appellant in that case had objected to the substitution on the basis that there was no necessity for excusing the original juror. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the trial judge had acted within its sound discretion in excusing the juror. In Toombs v. State, 739 So. 2d 550 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), a mid-deliberations substitution was made and, although the defendant moved for a mistrial on the ground that the substitution infringed on his right to a fair trial, he did not argue that ground on appeal. Rather, he argued on appeal only that the trial judge had committed reversible error by having an ex parte communication with the jury after it had begun its deliberations. Thus, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the issue argued on appeal had not been preserved but volunteered that, even if it had, "the trial judge's communication with the jury did not amount to reversible error." 739 So. 2d  at 552.
Both parties have cited various cases from other jurisdictions on point, but most of those cases are inapposite because they rely on a particular rule of procedure of that jurisdiction and/or a particular state constitutional provision, whereas for the reasons explained, we cannot consider on this appeal the implications of Rule 47, Ala. R. Civ. P., or § 11 of the Alabama Constitution. A thorough survey of the cases from other jurisdictions is found in David B. Sweet, Annotation, Propriety, Under State Statute or Court Rule, of Substituting State Trial Juror with Alternate After Case has been Submitted to Jury, 88 A.L.R.4th 711 (1991). Both the Hospital and Durham discuss in their respective briefs a number of those cases, and it may be fairly said that with respect to the two main issues involved  whether a mid-deliberations substitution is error per se and whether such an error can be considered harmless  cases go both ways. All of the cases cited by the Hospital are criminal cases, including some death-penalty cases. In most of those cases, a state procedural rule or a state statute, or both, expressly mandated the discharge of alternate jurors once the regular jurors began their deliberations. For example, in People v. Burnette, 775 P.2d 583 (Colo.1989), and State v. Bobo, 814 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn.1991), both cited by the Hospital, the state's applicable rule of criminal procedure mandated that "[a]n alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider its verdict." Rule 18.4(g)(1), Ala. R.Crim. P., contains substantially identical language. It may be contrasted with the less specific language of Rule 47(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., but this case does not require us to consider whether that difference in phrasing between the two rules is meaningful. Suffice it to say that in Burnette and Bobo the mandatory language controlled. Also implicated in both of those decisions were the respective state constitutional provisions relating to trial by jury.
In certain of the cases in which the court was unwilling to entertain a harmless-error *167 analysis of a mid-deliberations substitution, it was important that the alternate juror had been discharged or otherwise allowed to resume his or her normal activities in the community before being recalled and that the alternate was not questioned about those activities or a present ability to serve on the jury when recalled. E.g., Burnette. Once we eliminate from the cases cited by the Hospital those relying, in whole or part, on violations of state criminal statutes; violations of state criminal procedural rules; violations of state constitutional provisions relating to the right to trial by jury; and/or the inadequacy of the questioning of the alternate juror and the instructions given the alternate and the remaining regular jurors, we find no case ordering a reversal of a judgment for a mid-deliberations substitution of an alternate juror solely because the substitution created an abstract disadvantage or prejudice to the objecting party or because of "the dynamic of the deliberation process." As the court noted in State v. Sanchez, 129 N.M. 284, 6 P.3d 486, 490-92 (2000), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c) originally required that any substitution of an alternate juror occur before the alternate jurors were discharged and before the jury retired to deliberate. Effective December 1, 1999, however, Rule 24(c), Fed.R.Crim.P., was amended to read as follows:
There is currently no federal counterpart to Rule 47, Ala. R. Civ. P., because the practice of allowing alternate jurors in federal civil trials was abolished effective December 1, 1991. Smith v. Gulf Oil Co., 995 F.2d 638, 645 n. 6 (6th Cir.1993). However, before December 1991 Fed.R.Civ.P. 47(b) provided, in pertinent part, that "[a]n alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged after the jury retires to consider its verdict."
"State courts are increasingly willing to allow substitution during deliberation of an alternate juror kept separate from the deliberating jurors." Jon D. Ehlinger, Substitution of Alternate Jurors During Deliberations: Constitutional and Procedural Considerations, 57 Notre Dame Law. 137, 161 (1981). Should a judge decide, in his or her discretion, to allow an alternate juror to substitute for a regular juror during deliberations, the court should "conduct a careful voir dire of the alternate to determine if he has been subject to any impermissible outside influence and can still make a fair decision." Additionally, "[t]he court should further instruct the regular jurors to begin deliberations anew, or to summarize to the alternate juror the extent of the deliberations to that point." Id. at 164.
The Hospital does not argue on this appeal that the apparently benign conversation between C.W. and the circuit judge who stopped by the conference room where she was waiting should be considered in our analysis of whether her subsequent inclusion in the jury was erroneous. Accordingly, we consider only whether the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a *168 mistrial in the face of the Hospital's assertion that to place C.W. on the jury would disadvantage and unduly prejudice it in light of the "dynamic of the deliberation process." The court having put to C.W. the questions the Hospital had formulated for submission to her; the Hospital otherwise having been afforded a full opportunity to question C.W. concerning her activities while serving as an alternate and her ability and willingness to participate without restrictions or reservations in the restarted jury deliberations; and the trial judge having clearly instructed the reconstituted jury to "go over all the evidence again and bring [C.W.] up to speed," starting its deliberations anew as if it was just then beginning its deliberations, the prospect of prejudice to the Hospital was certainly ameliorated for purposes of our consideration under Rule 61, Ala. R. Civ. P.:
Likewise, Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P., dictates that
Further, pertinent to the charge the trial judge gave the reconstituted jury is the following feature of Rule 51, Ala. R. Civ. P.:
Given the limited grounds for a mistrial presented to the trial judge and the corresponding narrow scope of our review and the steps the trial judge took to attempt to counteract the potential for the particular prejudice about which the Hospital expressed concern, including an admonitionary final charge to the jury, to which no objection was made, we cannot say that the trial judge committed reversible error in denying the Hospital's motion for a mistrial on the juror-substitution issue.
The Hospital next contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial because, it says, "the jury's verdict is contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence." (Hospital's brief, at 43.) The standard of review of an order denying a new-trial motion on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is well established. "No ground for reversal of a judgment is more carefully scrutinized or rigidly limited than the ground that the verdict of the jury was against the great weight of the evidence." Christiansen v. Hall, 567 So. 2d 1338, 1341 (Ala.1990). "A jury verdict is presumed correct, and this presumption is strengthened by the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial." Med Plus Props. v. Colcock Constr. Group, Inc., 628 So. 2d 370, 374 (Ala.1993).
628 So. 2d  at 374 (quoting Deal v. Johnson, 362 So. 2d 214, 218 (Ala.1978)). The denial of such a motion "`rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not reverse a ruling in that regard unless it finds that the trial court's ruling constituted an abuse of discretion.'" Vaughan v. Oliver, 822 So. 2d 1163, 1170 (Ala.2001) (quoting Colbert County-Northwest Alabama Healthcare Auth. v. Nix, 678 So. 2d 719, 722 (Ala.1995)).
The factual issue, as the Hospital defines it, is whether the nursing staff of the Hospital "breached the applicable standard of care by failing to give [Durham] a pre-operative antibiotic, or in failing to question [Dr. McGrady's] handwritten orders that did not include an order that a pre-operative antibiotic be given." (Hospital's brief, at 43-44.)
It is undisputed that the nursing staff followed Dr. McGrady's admission orders, which did not prescribe a preoperative antibiotic. Durham's theory of the case, however, is that the Group had supplied the Hospital with "standing orders" to be used in admitting patients being treated by the Group and that those standing orders supplemented Dr. McGrady's admission orders and did require the nursing staff to administer preoperative antibiotics.[2] The jury evidently agreed with Durham's theory of the case and found that there were standing orders requiring the nursing staff to administer preoperative antibiotics to patients being treated by the Group and that those orders were applicable to Durham.
The Hospital concedes that evidence was presented to the jury indicating that the Hospital had been given such a standing order but merely contends that "the great weight of evidence demonstrated that it was not." We disagree. The record contains ample evidence of the existence of a standing order that required the nursing staff to administer preoperative antibiotics to patients being treated by the Group.
For example, the record contains a document styled as follows:
(Emphasis added.) The GYN 10 procedure contained a list of 13 directives. Item 1 stated, in pertinent part: "Admit to Drs. Walton, ... Edwards, ... or McGrady." Item 13 stated: "Cefotan 2 Gms. IVSS, unless allergic, one hour before surgery." Both Dr. Edwards and Dr. McGrady testified that GYN 10 was a set of standing orders the Group had given the Hospital and that those orders were applicable to Durham. They also testified that the GYN 10 procedure required the nursing staff to administer preoperative antibiotics to Durham. Although the Hospital presented the testimony of nurses and others *170 who disputed the physicians' testimony, the jury evidently believed Dr. Edwards and Dr. McGrady, as it was entitled to do. In short, the trial court did not err in denying the Hospital's motion for a new trial based on the Hospital's argument that it did not breach an applicable standard of care in failing to administer a preoperative antibiotic to Durham.
Finally, the Hospital contends that "[t]he trial court erred in failing to structure the future damages award to comply with the periodic payment provisions of the Alabama Medical Liability Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-543(b), and in denying [the Hospital's] motion to alter or amend the judgment to comply with the statute." (Hospital's brief, at 51.) As noted earlier, the trial court expressly held that to apply § 6-5-543(b), Ala.Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Medical Liability Act ("the AMLA"), to require the structuring of the future damages "would be a violation of the right to trial by jury." Durham argues that § 6-5-543(b), the future-damages provision of the AMLA, violates Ala. Const.1901, Article I, § 11 ("That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.").[3] This is so, she insists, because the future-damages provision of the AMLA differs in no relevant respect from the periodic-payment scheme provided by Ala.Code 1975, §§ 6-11-1 to -7, which was part of the "Tort-reform Act of 1987" that this Court declared unconstitutional, as violative of § 11, in Clark v. Container Corp. of America, Inc., 589 So. 2d 184, 198 (Ala.1991). In Clark six of the seven participating Justices held that "[t]he sentence in § 6-11-1 providing that `The fact-finder shall not reduce any future damages to present value'; all of § 6-11-3; and, consequently, all of § 6-11-4, since it has no operative effect apart from § 6-11-3; and all of § 6-11-5 violate §§ 11 and 13 of the Constitution, when a jury has been demanded, and as applied to the case of Billy Ray Clark and Halliburton Industrial Services Division v. Container Corporation of America, Inc.," in which, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, a jury had awarded Clark compensatory damages of $289,800 for lost future wages. 589 So. 2d  at 198.
Section 6-11-3, at issue in Clark, provides:
Article I, § 11, of the Alabama Constitution, a part of the Declaration of Rights, provides:
Article I, § 13, provides:
In Clark, this Court held that the provisions of the tort-reform future-damages scheme prohibiting the jury from "`reduc[ing] any future damages to present value'" violated the right to a trial by jury. 589 So. 2d  at 195. This was so, because, the main opinion explained, "[a]t the time of the ratification of the Constitution, . . . it was the jury's function to reduce future earnings to present value." 589 So. 2d  at 193. Consequently, the provisions of the tort-reform future-damages scheme took "away from the jury a factfinding function... that was within the province of the jury at the time of the ratification of the Constitution of 1901." 589 So. 2d  at 195.
In its principal brief the Hospital's argument on the question of the constitutionality of § 6-5-543(b) consists of only the following sentence: "There is no basis for ... the trial court's ... conclusion that application of the statutory provisions would violate the right to trial by jury." (Hospital's brief, at 54.) Clark is ignored.
Sea Calm Shipping Co., S.A. v. Cooks, 565 So. 2d 212, 216 (Ala.1990). See also McLemore v. Fleming, 604 So. 2d 353, 353 (Ala.1992). In its principal brief the Hospital points out that in Vaughan v. Oliver, supra, we ordered compliance with § 6-5-543(b). In Vaughan, we held that "the trial court erred in refusing to amend [a] judgment [of $2,000,000 in future damages] to conform to § 6-5-543(b)," 822 So. 2d  at 1166-67, and we remanded the case with instructions to apply the future-damages provisions of the AMLA. 822 So. 2d  at 1179. However, the constitutionality of the future-damages provision of the AMLA was *173 not challenged in Vaughan; therefore, this Court did not consider it. It is a familiar principle that "this Court will never search for constitutional infirmities in statutes, but will only consider those questions raised and insisted upon." Ex parte Hanna, 267 Ala. 527, 529, 103 So. 2d 720, 722 (1958) (emphasis added). "If `no considerations of public policy or morals are involved[, a] party may ... waive a rule of law, or statute, or even a constitutional provision.'" Armstrong v. Roger's Outdoor Sports, Inc., 581 So. 2d 414, 416 (Ala.1991) (quoting Alabama Terminix Co. v. Howell, 276 Ala. 59, 62, 158 So. 2d 915, 918 (1963)). Thus, Vaughan is inapposite.
In its reply brief, in response to Durham's argument concerning the conclusive effect of our holding in Clark, the Hospital attempts, for the first time, to distinguish or discredit Clark, quoting from the dissent in that case, and arguing as follows:
It is a well-established principle of appellate review that we will not consider an issue not raised in an appellant's initial brief, but raised only in the reply brief. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. v. Boyd, 877 So. 2d 592 (Ala.2003); Sanders v. Smitherman, 776 So. 2d 68, 73 (Ala.2000). Moreover, the provisions of § 6-5-543(b)(2)b. implicated by the above-quoted portion of the Hospital's argument are identical in all essential features with the corresponding provisions of § 6-11-3 held unconstitutional in Clark, with the exception that § 6-11-3(3)c.1 excludes attorney fees from that portion of future damages subject to structuring. Accordingly, whether we understand the above-quoted argument to be an attempt to distinguish, or to discredit, Clark, it fails. It is clear that § 6-5-543(a) and (d), like the corresponding provisions of the tort-reform future-damages scheme, namely, §§ 6-11-1, -3, and -5, deprive the jury of the right to reduce future earnings to present value. The Hospital does not argue that Clark should be overruled; rather, it simply states that "Clark should not be followed in this case." Thus, the holding of Clark is unchallenged. We follow Clark,[4] therefore, and hold that *174 all of § 6-5-543 violates the right to trial by jury guaranteed by § 11 of the Constitution of Alabama.
In summary, the trial court did not err in declining to enforce § 6-5-543, and it did not err in denying the Hospital's motion for a new trial. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
NABERS, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur.
WOODALL, J., concurs in the result.
[1]  Rule 24 was amended in 2002 as part of a general restyling of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Language substantially similar to the quoted language now appears in Rule 24(c)(3).
[2]  In defining "standing orders," the Hospital accepts the definition contained in Medical Protocols, Standing Orders and Preprinted Orders (adopted by the Alabama Board of Nursing and Board of Medical Examiners, March 25, 1993). The Protocols define standing orders as "written documents containing medical directives for the provision of patient care in selected stipulated clinical situations. Standing orders are generally formulated by the professional members of a department in a hospital or other health care facility."
[3]  Durham properly challenged the constitutionality of § 6-5-543 in the trial court in her "Response in Opposition to Defendant's Post-Judgment Motions," serving a copy of the challenge on the attorney general.
[4]  To the extent the amicus curiae Medical Association of the State of Alabama advances different arguments in an attempt to distinguish or discredit Clark, those arguments can not be considered. See Morgan County Comm'n v. Powell, 292 Ala. 300, 311, 293 So. 2d 830, 840 (1974), and State ex rel. Baxley v. Johnson, 293 Ala. 69, 74, 300 So. 2d 106, 110-11 (1974).