Title: Washington v. Walton

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

423 So. 2d 176 (1982)
Eara WASHINGTON and Robert Washington
v.
Dr. Johnnye Ruth WALTON, et al.
81-465.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 19, 1982.
*177 Robert H. Turner of Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders & Turner, Selma, for appellants.
Nathan G. Watkins, Jr. of Pruitt, Pruitt, Watkins & Robinson, Livingston, for appellees.
JONES, Justice.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in a nonjury case favorable to Defendants/Appellees Dr. Johnnye Ruth Walton and Dr. D.A. Marsh, arising out of a cause initiated by Plaintiff/Appellant Eara Washington, alleging medical malpractice and breach of contract.
We affirm.
Eara Washington commenced this action on April 30, 1981, by a three-count complaint, alleging negligence by Dr. Johnnye Ruth Walton and Dr. D.A. Marsh, in their diagnosis and treatment of her arm, which had been injured by broken glass. The original complaint failed to demand a trial by jury. On June 12, 1981, an amendment to the complaint added Ms. Washington's husband, Robert, as a party plaintiff, and added two counts seeking compensatory, general, and special damages for medical expenses and alleged loss of consortium. On August 13, 1981, Plaintiffs amended their complaint for a second time, alleging (against Dr. Marsh only) breach of contract. Again, trial by jury was not demanded. On August 25, 1981, the complaint was amended a third time, the substance of that amendment seeking, for the first time, trial by struck jury as to all issues theretofore alleged. On August 27, 1981, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs' demand for trial by jury. The trial court, on September 23, 1981, granted this motion. On October 16, 1981, the complaint was amended for the fifth time,[1] demanding "a trial by struck jury as plaintiffs [have] amended their complaint to allege breach of contract." Thereafter, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' jury demand, stating:
The trial court granted Dr. Walton's motion for partial summary judgment as to all allegations of malpractice relative to her treatment of Ms. Washington during 1964-65. From an adverse final judgment for the Defendants and the denial of a post-judgment motion for a new trial, the Washingtons appeal.
In 1964, Ms. Eara Washington was injured at her home in Livingston, Alabama, when broken particles of glass from a door slammed shut by the wind became embedded in her arm. Ms. Washington sought and received immediate medical attention *178 from Dr. Johnnye Ruth Walton, a local physician. Dr. Walton cleansed the area, injected a local anesthetic, then probed and sutured the wound. Several days later, Dr. Walton removed the sutures. At this point, the wound evidenced no signs of infection.
According to Ms. Washington, she continued to experience pain in her arm until she visited Dr. D.A. Marsh in York, Alabama, in 1979. Dr. Marsh excised a keloid scar formation at the location of the previous injury, probed the area and removed a piece of glass situated beneath the skin. He next sutured the wound and instructed Ms. Washington to return in several days to have the stitching removed. When she returned, there was no sign that the area was infected.
In May of 1980, Ms. Washington returned to Dr. Walton for treatment of pains in her neck, shoulder, and arm, as well as hypertension. In January of 1981, Ms. Washington informed Dr. Walton of the glass initially present in her arm in 1964, part of which had been removed by Dr. Marsh in 1979. Thereafter, Dr. Walton referred her to Dr. J.C. Matthews in Mississippi. Dr. Matthews, through the use of high-powered X-ray techniques, discovered glass still present in her arm. He removed that glass through surgery.
Plaintiffs' contention that they were improperly denied right to trial by jury is premised upon the following chronology:
Pursuant to ARCP 38(b), the Washingtons submit:
Appellants cite Baggett v. Sims, 387 So. 2d 792, 794 (Ala.1980), for the following proposition:
See, also, Dorcal, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation, 398 So. 2d 665 (Ala.1981).
Defendants point out in response that Baggett deals with a situation where there has been a reply to a compulsory counterclaim. In the absence of a compulsory counterclaim, and a reply thereto, we agree that Baggett`s interpretation of Rule 38 has no application.
Between the time of the filing of the original complaint, and the date on which the first jury demand (third amended complaint) was made, the Washingtons filed two amended complaints, the first against Drs. Walton and Marsh and the second against Dr. Marsh only. The first amended complaint added count four against Dr. Walton and count five against Dr. Marsh. The two counts were essentially the same, alleging negligent exploration of Plaintiff's arm for the presence of embedded glass and a failure to use antibiotics and a drain upon the completion of surgery. The original complaint had alleged that Drs. Walton and Marsh had failed to explore Plaintiff's arm for the presence of glass, failed to X-ray or perform any diagnostic tests for glass, and had failed to make a timely referral of Ms. Washington to another physician or specialist equipped to diagnose her problem.
Both the original complaint and the first amended complaint alleged that Drs. Walton and Marsh failed to meet the required standard of care of a physician in their general neighborhood, and that they were negligent in their treatment of Ms. Washington. The answers of Drs. Walton and Marsh to the first amended complaint realleged, affirmed, and adopted their answers to the original complaint.
In 2 C. Lyons, Alabama PracticeRules of Civil Procedure Annotated, Author's Comments § 38.5 (1973), it is said:
Simply stated, having once waived the right to trial by jury, one cannot, under the guise of amending a pleading, revive such a right by restating, albeit in different language, the same issues raised in the initial pleadings. Hamon Leasing, Inc. v. Continental Cars, Inc., 358 So. 2d 442 (Ala.1978). Failing to raise "new issues" in their first amended complaint, the Washingtons did not breathe life into the previously waived right to trial by jury.
Ms. Washington's second amended complaint sought to charge Dr. Marsh with breach of contract by "his failure to examine and treat Plaintiff in a reasonable and proper manner in that he failed to locate the glass in Plaintiff's arm and remove the same, thereby causing Plaintiff injuries, expenses and damages." In Paul v. Escambia County Hospital Board, 283 Ala. 488, at 492, 218 So. 2d 817 (Ala.1969), quoting Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Co. v. Sizemore, 258 Ala. 344, 62 So. 2d 459 (1952), it is stated:
In the second amended complaint, Plaintiffs essentially reallege that Dr. Marsh had failed to meet the required standard of care in his care and treatment of Ms. Washington, and was, therefore, negligent, thus breaching a duty owed her as a result of the parties' "contractual" relationship. Appellees submit, and we agree, that despite its "contractual" characterization, Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, in effect, simply restated in contract terms a breach of duty imposed by law, i.e., it simply restated the negligence claim. See Bonds v. Brown, 368 So. 2d 536 (Ala.1979). As such, it did not raise new issues to which a proper demand for jury trial could be directed.
On September 22, 1981, Dr. Johnnye Ruth Walton filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to all allegations of malpractice relative to her treatment of Ms. Washington in 1964-65. The motion was founded, among other things, upon the statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions, Ala.Code § 6-5-482 (1975), which reads as follows:
On November 12, 1981, the trial judge granted the motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that "there is no dispute as to any question of fact concerning the treatment of the Plaintiff by Dr. Johnnye Ruth Walton and that all of such treatment was performed more than four years before the filing of the complaint and more than six months after the discovery of the alleged injury. The Court finds this action is barred by the Statute of Limitations."
Plaintiff's original complaint, a portion of which was directed against Dr. Walton, was filed on April 30, 1981. Therein, Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, 1) that she visited Dr. Johnnye Ruth Walton in 1965 for a puncture wound which Dr. Walton treated; 2) that glass was discovered in her arm by another physician in November of 1979; 3) that Dr. Walton failed to explore her arm for the presence of embedded glass prior to closing the wound in 1965; 4) that even though she was first treated by Dr. Walton *181 in 1965, she was unaware and could not have known of facts giving rise to Dr. Walton's alleged negligence until the injury became apparent in the form of a nodule on her arm in November of 1979. Stated another way, Plaintiff contends that the injury, which occasioned her claim for malpractice against Dr. Walton, first occurred in November of 1979 with the appearance of the nodule at the site of her original wound. Consequently, according to Plaintiff, by filing her complaint against Dr. Walton in April of 1981, she fell within the allowable two-year period prescribed by Code 1975, § 6-5-482. We disagree.
Assuming, arguendo, the existence of an injury from which malpractice here might be inferred against Dr. Walton, it occurred in 1965 when Ms. Washington was initially injured and first visited Dr. Walton. From this point on, according to her own testimony, Ms. Washington continued to experience pain in her arm until November of 1979, when she visited Dr. Marsh and had some of the glass removed. Plaintiff first initiated a complaint against Dr. Walton in April of 1981. Assuming, once again, that Plaintiff first discovered her injury, or facts that would lead to its discovery, in November of 1979 when she visited Dr. Marsh, she does not come within the time limitations prescribed by § 6-5-482: 1) two years from the date of injury; 2) six months from the date of discovery of the injuries or of facts leading to such discovery; or 3) in no event more than four years from the date of injury. Thus, the trial judge did not err in granting Dr. Walton's motion for partial summary judgment.
The final issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for a continuance. In these matters, the trial court will be reversed only for palpable and gross abuse of discretion. Mitchell v. Moore, 406 So. 2d 347 (Ala. 1981). No such abuse is demonstrated here.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
[1]  The fourth amendment sought to substitute June 1964 as the date of Plaintiff's initial treatment by Dr. Walton.