Title: Frank Kruse, Esq., administrator of the estate of Timothy Lovely, M.D., and Southern Medical Group, Inc. v. Jeremy Freeman (Appeal from Walker Circuit Court: CV-07-0134). Affirmed. No Opinion.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 09/26/2014
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2014
____________________
1121480
____________________
Frank Kruse, Esq., administrator of the estate of Timothy
Lovely, M.D., and Southern Medical Group, Inc.
v.
Jeremy Freeman
Appeal from Walker Circuit Court
(CV-07-0134)
STUART, Justice.
AFFIRMED.  NO OPINION.
Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur.
Moore, C.J., and Murdock, J., dissent. 
1121480
MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting).
In my view the trial court's failure to give a
contributory-negligence instruction constituted reversible
error. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the no-opinion
affirmance of the judgment of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
Although suffering from a degree of cerebral palsy and
mental retardation, Jeremy Freeman nonetheless had been able
to work. After he fell at his house, Freeman was examined on
March 24, 2005, by Dr. Timothy Lovely, who ordered a CT scan
of Freeman's brain and then diagnosed him as suffering from a
mild concussion. On April 4, Freeman returned to Dr. Lovely
and complained about neck pain and numbness in his arms and
hands. Dr. Lovely ordered an X-ray of the upper (cervical)
spine, which revealed only a minor curvature. Thinking that
the crutch Freeman was using following knee surgery might be
causing the numbness, Dr. Lovely referred Freeman to Dr. Gary
N. Russell, the orthopedic surgeon who had performed the knee
surgery, whom he saw the next day.
Two months later Freeman's mother found him helpless in
his bed. He was transported to a hospital, where an MRI
2
1121480
revealed a herniated disk. A spinal fusion relieved the
pressure but left Freeman wheelchair-bound. In 2007 Freeman
sued four doctors, including Dr. Lovely, and associated
hospitals, claiming that their delay in diagnosing the
herniated disk was a breach of the standard of care and had
caused him permanent injury. At trial Dr. Lovely and Southern
Medical Group, Inc., the only remaining defendants, argued
that Freeman had contributed to the delay in treatment by not
informing the three other doctors who had examined him after
April 4 of the numbness in his arms and hands and the neck
pain. 
On March 22, 2013, the jury awarded Freeman $3.5 million
in compensatory damages. The trial court denied Dr. Lovely's
posttrial motions on August 1. Dr. Lovely committed suicide on
September 11. His estate appeals.
Discussion
Throughout the trial the court indicated numerous times
that it planned to give an instruction on contributory
negligence, namely that Freeman's failure properly to inform
the doctors of his symptoms contributed to the delay in
treatment of the herniated disk. The court twice formally
3
1121480
denied motions by Freeman seeking to exclude a contributory-
negligence instruction.
"In order to prove contributory negligence, the
defendant must show that the party charged: (1) had
knowledge of the condition; (2) had an appreciation
of the danger under the surrounding circumstances;
and (3) failed to exercise reasonable care, by
placing himself in the way of danger."
Brown v. Piggly-Wiggly Stores, 454 So. 2d 1370, 1372 (Ala.
1984). "The question of contributory negligence is normally
one for the jury. However, where the facts are such that all
reasonable men must reach the same conclusion, contributory
negligence may be found as a matter of law." 454 So. 2d at
1372.
Because two months elapsed between Freeman's visit to Dr.
Lovely and the discovery of Freeman's spinal condition, I
believe a justiciable issue existed as to whether Freeman was
contributorily negligent. In that period Freeman saw a number
of other doctors about his ailments, none of whom diagnosed
the problem until Freeman presented himself at the hospital
for examination in mid-June in a state of paralysis. Certainly
the jury was entitled to find that Freeman did not appreciate
the necessity of fully informing the other doctors of his
symptoms and thus was not negligent. On the other hand, I
4
1121480
believe that Dr. Lovely was entitled to have the jury decide
this fact-bound question based on its evaluation of what
Freeman said to the three other doctors who saw him between
his visit to Dr. Lovely and the manifestation of his
paralysis. Because credible testimony supported Dr. Lovely's
theory of the case, he was entitled to have the jury so
instructed. "The defendant has the right to request
instructions based upon any material hypothesis which the
evidence in his favor tends to establish." Ex parte McGee, 383
So. 2d 205, 206 (Ala. 1980).
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.
5