Title: 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.)

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

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 Reporter. 
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 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
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 
be 
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 Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 
1090875 
Ex p a r t e Hazel S t u t t s 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
(In r e : Hazel M. S t u t t s , 
i n d i v i d u a l l y , and Hazel M. 
S t u t t s , 
by V i r g i n i a L. Gester, her 
a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t 
v. 
Joshua D. V a c i k , M.D., e t a l . ) 
( C o l b e r t C i r c u i t Court, CV-07-102) 
BOLIN, 
J u s t i c e . 
P E T I T I O N DENIED. 
NO OPINION. 
W o o d a l l , 
S m i t h , M u r d o c k , a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 
1090875 
Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , S t u a r t , and P a r k e r , J J . , d i s s e n t . 
2 
1090875 
LYONS, J u s t i c e 
( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
H a z e l S t u t t s p e t i t i o n s t h i s C o u r t f o r 
a w r i t o f mandamus 
d i r e c t i n g 
t h e 
t r i a l 
judge 
t o 
r e c u s e 
h i m s e l f 
from t h e 
u n d e r l y i n g m e d i c a l - m a l p r a c t i c e 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
The C o u r t 
d e n i e s 
S t u t t s ' s p e t i t i o n , w i t h o u t an o p i n i o n . 
I must 
r e s p e c t f u l l y 
d i s s e n t . 
On A p r i l 17, 2007, S t u t t s sued Joshua D. V a c i k , M.D., and 
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 t h a t 
Dr. 
V a c i k , 
w h i l e 
a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f MAS, 
v i o l a t e d t h e 
s t a n d a r d o f c a r e 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 t o 
t i m e l y d i a g n o s e and t r e a t a c o n d i t i o n i n h e r eye known as 
t e m p o r a l 
a r t e r i t i s . 
S t u t t s 
c l a i m e d 
t h a t 
she 
s u f f e r e d 
permanent b l i n d n e s s as a r e s u l t o f t h e a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e . 
The d e p o s i t i o n o f Dr. 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 l a w y e r 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 
t r e a t i n g 
Mrs. 
S t u t t s , 
you 
were 
a f f i l i a t e d 
w i t h 
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.? 
"A. 
T h a t ' s c o r r e c t . 
"Q. Okay. And 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 
c o r p o r a t i o n ? 
"A. Yes, s i r . 
3 
1090875 
"Q. 
Who 
are the o t h e r p r i n c i p a l s i n t h a t 
P.C.? 
"A. 
J a c k 
McClendon, 
B r a d 
M c A n n a l l e y , 
Randy 
Pounders, and Donald C o n k l i n . " 
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 
McClendon 
i s 
a l s o 
the 
r e g i s t e r e d 
agent 
f o r 
and 
i n c o r p o r a t o r of 
MAS. 
The 
t r i a l 
judge 
d i s c l o s e d 
t h a t Dr. McClendon was 
h i s 
p r i m a r y - c a r e p h y s i c i a n . 
The 
t r i a l judge f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t 
h i s 
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 would 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 the judge i n t h i s case. 
S t u t t s 
f i l e d 
a motion 
s e e k i n g t h e 
t r i a l 
j u d g e ' s 
r e c u s a l , 
a l l e g i n g t h a t the t r i a l judge's p r i m a r y - c a r e p h y s i c i a n "has a 
b u s i n e s s 
and 
f i n a n c i a l 
i n t e r e s t 
i n the 
outcome 
of 
t h i s 
l i t i g a t i o n " and t h a t f o r the t r i a l judge t o p r e s i d e o v e r the 
t r i a l 
o f Dr. V a c i k and MAS 
"would 
n e c e s s a r i l y 
c a l l 
i n t o 
q u e s t i o n t h e i m p a r t i a l i t y o f [ t h e t r i a l j u d g e ] . " 
The m o t i o n 
was b a s e d on Canon 3 . C . ( 1 ) , Alabama 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 judge s h o u l d d i s q u a l i f y 
h i m s e l f 
i n a p r o c e e d i n g i n w h i c h h i s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n 
i s 
r e q u i r e d 
by 
law 
o r h i s 
i m p a r t i a l i t y 
might 
r e a s o n a b l y be 
q u e s t i o n e d 
" 
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 the 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 
t h i n g s , " [ t ] h a t t h e r e has been no showing t o the 
r e a s o n a b l e 
s a t i s f a c t i o n 
of 
the 
c o u r t 
t h a t 
[ D r . 
McClendon] has 
any 
f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n the outcome of t h i s c a s e . " 
In Ex p a r t e Duncan, 638 
So. 
2d 1332, 
1334 
( A l a . 1994), 
t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d the f o l l o w i n g c o n c e r n i n g Canon 3 . C . ( 1 ) : 
"Under Canon 3 ( C ) ( 1 ) , Alabama Canons of 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 are shown 
w h i c h make i t r e a s o n a b l e 
f o r members of the p u b l i c 
o r 
a 
p a r t y , 
o r 
c o u n s e l 
opposed 
t o 
q u e s t i o n 
the 
i m p a r t i a l i t y 
of 
the 
j u d g e . ' 
A c r o m a g - V i k i n g 
v. 
B l a l o c k , 
420 
So. 
2d 
60, 
61 
( A l a . 
1982) . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
the 
Canon 
3(C) 
t e s t 
i s : 'Would 
a 
 
p e r s o n of o r d i n a r y prudence i n the judge's p o s i t i o n  
knowing a l l of the 
f a c t s known t o the judge 
f i n d 
 
t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e 
b a s i s f o r q u e s t i o n i n g 
the  
Judge's i m p a r t i a l i t y ? ' 
M a t t e r of S h e f f i e l d , 465 
So. 
2d 
350, 
356 
( A l a . 1984). 
The 
q u e s t i o n 
i s 
not 
 
whether the Judge was 
i m p a r t i a l i n f a c t , but whether 
a n o t h e r p e r s o n , knowing a l l of the 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , 
might r e a s o n a b l y q u e s t i o n the j u d g e ' s i m p a r t i a l i t y - ¬
whether t h e r e i s an appearance of 
i m p r o p r i e t y . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
I t b l i n k s r e a l i t y t o deny t h a t Dr. McClendon, a member of 
MAS, 
has 
any 
f i n a n c i a l 
i n t e r e s t i n 
the 
outcome 
of 
t h i s 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
We 
have 
n o t h i n g 
b e f o r e 
us 
t o 
e s t a b l i s h 
the 
e x i s t e n c e 
or 
l i m i t s 
of 
any 
i n s u r a n c e 
coverage, 
b u t , 
even 
assuming 
t h a t 
any 
judgment t h a t might be 
e n t e r e d 
i n 
t h i s 
p r o c e e d i n g 
i s 
f u l l y 
c o v e r e d by 
i n s u r a n c e , 
a s c e n a r i o most 
f a v o r a b l e t o the f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n of MAS 
i f a judgment i s 
5 
1090875 
r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t i t , 
t h e p r o s p e c t o f i n c r e a s e d premiums owed 
by MAS o r t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n o f MAS's coverage a r e m a t t e r s i n 
w h i c h 
Dr. McClendon, as a member o f MAS, 
i s 
d i r e c t l y 
i n t e r e s t e d . 
We do n o t h e r e d e a l w i t h whether t h e t r i a l judge i s i n 
f a c t 
i m p a r t i a l . 
We 
l o o k 
o n l y 
f o r t h e appearance 
o f 
i m p r o p r i e t y . 
The h y p o t h e t i c a l p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y 
prudence 
e v a l u a t i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e appearance o f i m p r o p r i e t y i n 
the 
t r i a l 
j u d g e ' s 
h e a r i n g 
a case i n w h i c h h i s p e r s o n a l 
p h y s i c i a n has a f i n a n c i a l 
i n t e r e s t would o f n e c e s s i t y be 
c o g n i z a n t o f 
t h e 
s i g n i f i c a n c e o f 
t h e 
exposure o f 
t h e p h y s i c i a n 
t o t h e r i s k o f i n c r e a s e d 
premiums o r t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n o f 
coverage f o r 
h i s p r a c t i c e group. 
T h i s 
h y p o t h e t i c a l p e r s o n 
would have t o 
be l i v i n g 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 o f 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 
c o s t s o f l i a b i l i t y - i n s u r a n c e 
coverage o r t h e r i s k s o f i t s 
u n a v a i l a b i l i t y . 
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 
t o r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l judge t o r e c u s e h i m s e l f . 
Cobb, C . J . , 
c o n c u r s . 
6