Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00839/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00839-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

DEBRA L. LOFTIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-839-WKW

) (WO)

U. S. LABS-FOUNTAIN VALLEY, )

INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the court on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed on October 16,

2006. (Doc. # 7.) Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the basis that it fails to “allege any act or omission that would render

[Defendants] liable to the Plaintiff . . . or the detailed specification and factual description of each

act and omission required by Ala. Code § 6-5-551.” (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff filed a response in

opposition to the motion on November 8, 2006 (Doc. # 10), and Defendants filed a reply on

November 16, 2006 (Doc. # 11). For the following reasons, the court finds that the motion is due

to be DENIED.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(diversityjurisdiction). The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction, and the court finds adequate

allegations in support of personal jurisdiction. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion, such as the one presently before this court, tests the legal sufficiency

Case 3:06-cv-00839-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 3
2

of the complaint. A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted

under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); see also South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Montalvo, 84 F.3d 402,

406 (11th Cir. 1996) (A motion to dismiss must be denied “unless it is clear the plaintiff can prove

no set of facts in support of the claims in the complaint.” ); Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967

(11th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted) (“[W]e may not . . . [dismiss] unless it appears beyond doubt that

the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claimsin the complaint that would entitle him

or her to relief.”). In applying this standard, the court will accept as true all well-pleaded factual

allegations in the complaint, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those allegations, and

views those facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Hishon, 467

U.S. at 73. 

DISCUSSION

Section 6-5-551 of the Alabama Code provides in relevant part:

In any action for injury, damages, or wrongful death . . . against a health care provider

for breach of the standard of care, . . . [t]he plaintiff shall include in the complaint

filed in the action a detailed specification and factual description of each act and

omission alleged by plaintiff to render the health care provider liable to plaintiff and

shall include when feasible and ascertainable the date, time, and place of the act or

acts. . . . . Any complaint which fails to include such detailed specification and

factual description of each act and omission shall be subject to dismissal for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Ala. Code § 6-5-551 (1975). The Alabama Supreme Court has clarified that

when a plaintiff files a complaint alleging that a health care provider breached the

standard of care owed to the plaintiff, although every element of the cause of action

need not be stated with particularity, the plaintiff must give the defendant health care

provider fair notice of the allegedly negligent act and must identify the time and

place it occurred and the resulting harm. If the complaint affords the defendant

Case 3:06-cv-00839-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 3
 Furthermore, at this stage in the litigation, the court declines to dismiss Defendant Esoterix Inc. from this 1

lawsuit because Plaintiff should be given the opportunity to determine through discovery if there is a sufficient

relationship between the defendants to create liability on her claims.

3

health care provider fair notice of these essential elements, the courts should strive

to find that the complaint includes the necessary “detailed specification and factual

description of each act and omission alleged by plaintiff to render the health care

provider liable to plaintiff.”

Mikkelsen v. Salama, 619 So. 2d 1382, 1384 (Ala. 1993) (quoting § 6-5-551) (emphasis added). 

In this case, the Complaint alleges that Defendants were negligent in testing and reporting

Plaintiff’s urine specimen, kidney sample, and bladder wash as positive for cancerous or malignant

cells; the Complaint provides the specific dates each test was performed and each specific laboratory

test report identification number; and the Complaint alleges that due to the erroneous laboratory

results, Plaintiff was caused to undergo invasive treatment, hospitalization, stress, pain and suffering.

(Doc. # 1.) Accordingly, the court finds that these allegations satisfy the pleading requirements of

Section 6-5-551 by giving Defendantsfair notice of the allegedly negligent act, identifying the time

and place it occurred, and the resulting harm. See Mikkelsen, 619 So. 2d at 1384. Thus, the motion 1

to dismiss is due to be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is herebyORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

# 7) is hereby DENIED.

DONE this 17th day of November, 2006.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00839-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 3