Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_10-cv-00578/USCOURTS-alnd-5_10-cv-00578-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

MONA OWENS, as )

Administratrix of the Estate of )

John Michael Owens, Deceased, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. CV-10-S-578-NE

)

SUNBRIDGE HEALTHCARE, )

CORPORATION d/b/a )

SUNBRIDGE CARE AND ) 

REHABILITATION OF )

DECATUR, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss portions of

plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

and motion for a more definite statement of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Upon consideration of the motion, plaintiff’s 1

response, and plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court concludes the motion is due

2

to be denied.

I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Doc. no. 16. 1

Doc. no. 17. 2

FILED

 2010 Jul-09 AM 08:35

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 17
A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) permits a party to move to dismiss a

complaint for, among other reasons, “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This rule must be read together with Rule 8(a), 3

which requires that a pleading contain only a “short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While that

pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” Bell Atlantic Corp.

 In full text, Rule 12(b) provides that: 3

Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive

pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; 

(2) lack of personal jurisdiction; 

(3) improper venue; 

(4) insufficient process; 

(5) insufficient service of process; 

(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and 

(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. 

A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a

responsive pleading is allowed. If a pleading sets out a claim for relief that does not

require a responsive pleading, an opposing party may assert at trial any defense to

that claim. No defense or objection is waived by joining it with one or more other

defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 

2

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 17
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 550 (2007), it does demand “more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. —, 129

S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citations omitted). 

A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” [Twombly,

550 U.S., at 555]. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked

assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id., at 557. 

To survive a motion to dismiss founded upon Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), [for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Id., at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at 556. The

plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it

asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

unlawfully. Ibid. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely

consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line

between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id., at

557 (brackets omitted). 

Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First,

the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained

in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals

of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice. Id., at 555 (Although for the purposes of a

motion to dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations in the

complaint astrue, we “are not bound to accept astrue a legal conclusion

couched as a factual allegation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure fromthe hyper-technical,

code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of

discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. 

Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives

3

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 17
a motion to dismiss. Id., at 556. Determining whether a complaint

states a plausible claim for relief will, asthe Court of Appeals observed,

be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on

its judicial experience and common sense. 490 F.3d, at 157-158. But

where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than

the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged — but it

has not “show[n]” — “that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. Rule

Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). 

In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to

dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they

are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. 

While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded

factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then

determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. 

Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at —, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50 (emphasis added). 

B. Rule 12(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement

Rule 12(e) provides that

[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to

which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or

ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The

motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point

out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the court orders

a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after

notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike

the pleading or issue any other appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). 

II. ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Mona Owens, is the Administratrix of the Estate of John Michael

4

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 4 of 17
Owens, who is deceased. John Owens was a resident of defendant’s “Sunbridge Care

and Rehabilitation for Decatur” facility at the time of his death. As the arguments 4

raised by defendant in support of its motion to dismiss relate primarily to the

sufficiency of plaintiff’s pleading, it will be helpful to set out plaintiff’s allegations

in their entirety. Plaintiff alleges:

7. [John] Owens, who before the amputation of his left leg was

self sufficient, living at home and able to care for himself. He was

admitted to Sunbridge on or about the 20th day of January, 2008, for

physical and prosthetic therapy, with the following diagnosis:

a. post-amputation left leg;

b. diabetes;

c. amputation of right great toe approximately eighteen

months prior.

8. Upon admission to Sunbridge as of January 20th, 2008,

Owens was a known risk for infection and required diligent observation,

maintenance, monitoring and preventive measures to avoid said

infections.

9. Defendant, Sunbridge Healthcare Corporation, is a New

Mexico corporation doing business in Alabama, doing business as

SunBridge Care and Rehabilitation for Decatur, holding itself out as a

skilled nursing facility and/or nursing home at 4th Avenue SE, Decatur,

Alabama.

10. Defendant Sunbridge holds itself out to the public and

federal and state agencies as a skilled nursing facility, and as an

institution skilled to provide competent and time rehabilitation services,

medical, dental and health care treatment, supervision, facilities and

equipment to patients and residents admitted thereto. As a skilled

nursing facility and/or nursing home, Sunbridge is licensed by the

Doc. no. 15 (Amended Complaint), at ¶¶ 1-2. 4

5

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 5 of 17
Licensure and Certification Division ofthe State of Alabama Department

of Public Health (“DLC”), now known as Division of Health Care

Facilities, and is subject to regulations promulgated by the United States

Government and by the rules of the DLC for the operation of skilled

nursing facilities and nursing homes in Alabama. Pursuant to the rules

of DLC for operation of nursing home facilities in Alabama as mandated

in Alabama Administrative Code 420-5-10-.01 through 420-5-10-.18,

and rules and regulations promulgated by the United States Government

for Medicare and Medicaid providers and recipients as mandated by

Code of Federal Regulations 42 C.F.R. § 483.1 through 42 C.F.R. §

483.75, Defendant Sunbridge was to be operated and managed in

accordance with all federal, state, Medicare or Medicaid standards for

comprehensive skilled nursing care. These include, but are not

necessarily limited to, the regulations enacted pursuant to the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) by HCFA, and regulations dealing

with long term health care facilities and Medicare and Medicaid benefits

as found not only at 42 C.F.R. Part 483, but also 42 C.F.R. Part 405, 42

C.F.R. Part 420 and 42 C.F.R. Part 442, as well as the Rules of the

Alabama State Board of Health, Division of Licensure and Certification,

for Nursing Homes adopted on November 16, 1998.

. . . .

12. Pursuant to the laws, rules and regulations of the United

States and the State of Alabama, the residents of Defendant Sunbridge,

to include Owens, were owed a number of duties, which, among others,

were to provide each resident and Owens with the highest practicable

degree of nursing and medical care, proper nutrition for each resident’s

particular diagnoses, conditions and history, a safe, sanitary and

comfortable environment and to act in a manner so as to not cause harm

to the resident. These duties owed to Owens were systematically,

deliberately, negligently or wantonly breached by Defendant, their

employees, contractors and agents.

13. The DLC rules, the United States Code of Federal

Regulations, and the operations manuals and/or policies and procedures

for the Defendant Sunbridge defined the standard of care and treatment

6

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 6 of 17
for the residents and patients at the Sunbridge. Defendant, however,

repeatedly failed to meet that standard of care, and the duties owed to

Owens and the residents of Defendant Sunbridge.

14. During Owens’ residency at Sunbridge, Defendant

Sunbridge, through agents and employees, and contrary to their duty and

undertaking to furnish Owens with competent and timely medical and

health care, diagnoses and treatment, negligently or wantonly failed in

their duties and caused Owens to be injured, which proximately resulted

in his death in the following ways, among others:

a. By failing to properly and adequately budget

Sunbridge in order to provide the highest practical care and service

to Owens. This resulted in insufficient numbers of qualified

nursing staff, maintenance staff, and physical therapy/

rehabilitation staff to meet the needs of residents and further

failing to ensure adequate amounts of nutrition and hydration, a

failure to accurately record, document and reflect the intake/output

and weight changes of the deceased;

b. By failing to provide sufficiently qualified nursing

and other staff in sufficient numbers and quantity at Sunbridge in

order to provide the highest practical care and service to Owens,

and either fraudulently misrepresenting or suppressing this fact

from Owens, his family and representatives.

c. By the fact the Defendant negligently or wantonly

recruited, hired, investigated, retained, supervised and/or trained

the administrative staff, nursing staff, maintenance staff, physical

therapy staff, dietary staff, and other employees at Sunbridge,

which caused, contributed to, or proximately resulted in the

neglect of Owens, his injuries, infections, mal-nourishment and

dehydration.

d. By failing to observe an adequate infection control

program at the facility required by Department of Public Health

regulations and OBRA rules and regulations and by failing to

7

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 7 of 17
prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection

in and around the right foot and toe area. By failing to properly

handle Owens’ dressings, medications, and wound cleansing

proceduresin order to prevent infections, Sunbridge was negligent

and/or wanton. During the course of Owens’ residency at

Sunbridge, Defendant, their employees and/or agents failed to

keep open wounds and ulcers properly cleaned and covered and/or

otherwise failed to provide proper treatment.

e. By failing to observe proper hygiene care and failing

to keep Owens clean including bathing, dressing changes and

other routine cleaning and grooming to prevent infection and assist

in the healing process as required by the applicable standards of

care, policies and procedures of Sunbridge, DLC rules and OBRA

regulations.

f. By failing to prepare and draft nursing progress notes

in regard to Owens which would describe his changing

condition(s) with respect to the description of his wounds and

infections and other site developments, and further, no proper

assessment was done in regard to her wounds or infection sites

and/or subjective complaints of pain. Accurate, timely and

appropriate assessments to the right leg and ankle area infection

were not provided by Defendant, their employees and/or agents.

g. By failing to prepare proper nursing assessments and

properly implement nursing care in regard to Owens and by failing

to take steps to correct shortcomingsin care. Owenssuffered from

malnutrition and dehydration. Defendant failed to regularly weigh

Owens, check his vital signs and/or check his conditions through

laboratory or x-ray or other medical testing.

h. By failing to adopt and/or prepare and follow a

complete, accurate and individualized patient care plan and

assessment for Owens and the failure to take adequate steps to

correct or address this deficiency. Owens’ care plan throughout his

residency does not properly reflect his diagnoses, does not

8

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 8 of 17
properly set forth a hydration program and safeguard the

implementation of that program, failed to follow the plan of care

with regard to ambulation and failed to modify the care plan in

light of significant changes in his medical condition;

i. By failing to adopt and/or prepare and follow a

complete, accurate and individualized patient care plan and

assessment for Owens and to take adequate steps to correct or

address this deficiency. Owens’ care plan throughout his residency

does not properly reflect his diagnoses, such as infection, diabetes

and further fails to adequately address and monitor his conditions

such as drug interaction, infections, nutrition and hydration. 

j. By failing to notifyOwens’ physician of deterioration

of his condition in a timely manner.

k. By failing to follow operations manuals and/or

policies and procedures for Sunbridge, OBRA regulations, DLC

rules and regulations and applicable Alabama law.

l. By failing to document in a timely and proper manner

and/or by failing to document at all, Owens’ condition, as well as

the care and treatment to be rendered to him and by further failing

to assess and monitor Owens’ dietary status, wound and infections.

By violating the Code of Alabama, §38-9-8 (1975, as amended) by

failing to report or cause a report to be made of the abuse and/or

neglect of Owens.

m. By failing to inform Owens’ family or health care

providers of the change of his well-being, conditions or dangerous

propensities of his conditions, particularly if such conditions were

not diagnosed and treated properly and in a timely manner. 

n. By failing to adhere to dietary assessment

requirements concerning daily fluid intake requirements/output.

o. By failing to adhere to OBRA regulations and DLC

9

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 9 of 17
rules and regulations concerning the performance ofthe admission

assessment, MDS assessment and care plan by a registered nurse.

p. By failing to utilize that degree of medical, nursing

and health care skills, knowledge and competence required by law

of all skilled nursing facilities.

q. The above wrongful acts and omissions constitute

negligence, wantonness and/or breach of duty and are systemic

and the general practice, course of conduct, habit, custom and/or

routine practices of Defendant at the Sunbridge facility. The

wrongful acts, omissions, neglect, wantonness and/or abuse by the

Defendant, outlined above, proximately caused or resulted in

severe permanent injuries that ultimately led to the death of John

Michael Owens.

15. In regard to the above wrongful acts, omissions and acts of

negligence and/or wantonness asset forth above, these acts have become

the general practice, habit, custom and routine practice of the staff and

employees at the Sunbridge facility.

16. Defendants were on notice of their repeated violations of

DLC rules and OBRA regulations, Sunbridge’s own policies and

procedures and the repeated breaches of duties owed to Owens because

of complaints of substandard care, by residents, and residents’ sponsors

and family members and by deficiency reports prepared by the DLC.

Defendant, however, failed to take adequate steps to correct such

violations and deficiencies.

17. The systemic failure of the Defendants outlined above

contributed to and/or proximately caused the death of John Michael

Owens.

18. The wrongful acts, omissions, neglect, wantonness, and/or

abuse by the Defendants, outlined hereinabove, proximately caused

and/or contributed to the death of John Michael Owen.5

Id. at ¶¶ 7-18. 5

10

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 10 of 17
III. DISCUSSION

Defendant asks the court to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for alleged inadequate

budgeting or staffing of the defendant’s nursing home, and for an alleged failure to

adopt or enforce appropriate policies and procedures, because those theories of

corporate liability are not recognized under Alabama law. Defendant also requests the

court to require plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint that satisfies the

heightened pleading requirements of Section 6-5-551 of the Alabama Medical

Liability Act. 

A. Corporate Liability Allegations

Defendant argues that plaintiff’s claims based upon the following alleged

breaches of the standard of care are not cognizable under Alabama law: (1) a failure

“to properly and adequately budget Sunbridge in order to provide the highest practical

care and service to Owens;” (2) a failure “to provide sufficiently qualified nursing and

6

other staff in sufficient numbers and quantity”; and (3) a failure “to follow operations 7

manuals and/or policies and proceduresfor Sunbridge, OBRA regulations, DLC rules

and regulations and applicable Alabama law.” 

8

The parties agree that plaintiff’s claims are governed by the Alabama Medical

Amended Complaint, at ¶ 14(a). 6

Id. at ¶ 14(b). 

7

Id. at ¶ 14(k). 

8

11

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 11 of 17
Liability Act (“AMLA”), Alabama Code § 6-5-480 et seq. and Alabama Code § 6-5-

540 et seq. The AMLA provides that, “[i]n any action for injury or damages or 9

wrongful death,” a plaintiff must prove “that the health care provider failed to comply

with the standard of care and that such failure probably caused the injury or death in

question.” Ala. Code § 6-5-549 (1975). The “standard of care” is statutorily defined

as “that level of such reasonable care, skill, and diligence as other similarly situated

health care providersin the same general line of practice, ordinarily have and exercise

in like cases.” Ala. Code § 6-5-542(2) (1975).

The determinative issue regarding Defendants’ liability is whether

they exercised such reasonable care, skill and diligence as other nursing

homes would ordinarily exercise under similar circumstances and, if not,

whether the alleged breach proximately caused the harm and death at

issue. Keebler v. Winfield Carraway Hospital, 531 So. 2d 841

(Ala.1988). If Defendants provided reasonable care, they have fulfilled

any duty owed to Plaintiff, notwithstanding an unfortunate outcome.

McMickens v. Callahan, 533 So. 2d 579 (Ala.1988). Under the AMLA,

for Plaintiff to prevail in an action against a nursing home, Plaintiff must

establish by substantial evidence:(1) the appropriate standard of care; (2)

a deviation therefrom by Defendants’ nursing personnel; and (3)

proximate cause between the act or omission constituting the breach and

the subsequent death. Peden v. Ashmore, 554 So. 2d 1010 (Ala.1989).

Estate of Bradley ex rel. Bradley v. Mariner Health, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194

(S.D. Ala. 2004).

See doc. no. 17 (defendant’s brief), at 2 (“All claims in this case are governed by the 9

Alabama Medical Liability Act. . . .”); doc. no. 18 (plaintiff’s brief), at 2 (“Plaintiff acknowledges

and stipulates that the Defendant Sunbridge is a healthcare provider qualifying under the terms and

definitions of that type entity contained in the AMLA.”). 

12

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 12 of 17
Thus, a nursing home can be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior

for a breach of the applicable standard of care by any health care provider employed

by it. A nursing home also can be held liable for negligently hiring, training, or

supervising its employees, see Ala. Code § 6-5-551 (1975), or for negligently

appointing or supervising an incompetent health care provider whose negligence

injures the plaintiff, see, e.g., Humana Medical Corporation of Alabama v.

Traffanstedt, 597 So. 2d 667, 669 (Ala. 1992). The allegations of plaintiff’s complaint

that are at issue in this motion clearly do not fall under either of the latter two

categories. Plaintiff has cited no authority, and the court has located none, explicitly

holding that allegations of failure to adequately staff or fund a nursing home facility,

or for failure to follow policies, rules and/or regulations, can be used in support of a

claim for breach of care under the AMLA. 

The lack of any such of authority is not dispositive, however, especially

considering that there also is no authority explicitly stating that such allegations

cannot support a negligence claim. Further, that Alabama courts have implicitly

allowed claims based upon similar allegations. For example, in Ex ParteCoosa Valley

Health Care, Inc., 789 So. 2d 208 (Ala. 2000), the Alabama Supreme Court allowed

a negligence claim against a nursing home under the AMLA based upon allegations

of (among other things): “failure to provide sufficient numbers of qualified

13

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 13 of 17
personnel”; “failure to increase the number of nursing personnel”; “failure to provide

nursing personnel sufficient in number to provide proper care”; “failure to establish,

publish and/or adhere to policies for nursing personnel”; “failure to adopt adequate

guidelines, policies and procedures”; and, 

[t]he failure by the members of the governing body of COOSA

VALLEYHEALTH CARE to discharge their legal and lawful obligation

by:

1. assuring that the rules and regulations designed to protect

the health and safety of the patients, such as [the plaintiff],

as promulgated by the Alabama State Board of Health were

consistently complied with on an ongoing basis;

2. assuring that the patient care policies for Defendants were

consistently complied with on an ongoing basis;

3. assuring that the policy and procedures manuals for

Defendants were updated and modified to address problems

which consistently emerged at the facility; and

4. responsibly assuring that appropriate corrective measures

were implemented to cure problems concerning inadequate

patient care.

Id. at 211-13. Based on the Alabama Supreme Court’s implicit endorsement of

AMLA claims arising out of allegations of inadequate staffing and failure to follow

policies and procedures, this court concludes that the allegations asserted by the

plaintiff in this case are sufficient to support a claim for relief under the AMLA. 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s allegations of inadequate budgeting or

14

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 14 of 17
staffing and failure to adopt or enforce appropriate policies and procedures is due to

be denied. 

B. Heightened Pleading Requirements/ Motion for a More Definite Statement

Defendant next argues that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not satisfy the

heightened pleading requirements of the AMLA. The provision of the AMLA

governing pleading states:

In any action for injury, damages, or wrongful death, whether in

contract or in tort, against a health care provider for breach of the

standard of care, whether resulting from acts or omissions in providing

health care, or the hiring, training, supervision, retention, or termination

of care givers, the Alabama Medical Liability Act shall govern the

parameters of discovery and all aspects of the action. The 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 providerliable to plaintiff and shall include when

feasible and ascertainable the date, time, and place of the act or acts.

The plaintiff shall amend his complaint timely upon ascertainment of

new or different acts or omissions upon which his claim is based;

provided, however, that any such amendment must be made at least 90

days before trial. 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. Any party shall be prohibited from conducting discovery with

regard to any other act or omission orfrom introducing at trial evidence

of any other act or omission.

Ala. Code § 6-5-551 (1975) (emphasis supplied). 

Thus, 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,

15

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 15 of 17
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

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.” Section 6-

5-551; see Comments, Rule 9; see, e.g., Keller v. Security Federal

Savings & Loan Ass’n, 555 So. 2d 151 (Ala. 1989); Kabel v. Brady, 519

So. 2d 912 (Ala. 1987).

Mikkelsen v. Salama, 619 So. 2d 1382, 1384 (Ala. 1993) (emphasis supplied).

The court findsthat the allegations of plaintiff’s amended complaint in this case

are sufficient to place defendant on fair notice of the basis of plaintiff’s claims. 

Plaintiff’s failure to identify the exact time and date her decedent’s injuries occurred

is not fatal to her claims, because the majority of plaintiff’s allegations concern

omissions, not acts. As the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Alabama explained in Betts v. Eli Lilly and Co., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (S.D. Ala.

2006), 

the obligation to address time and location applies to acts, not omissions,

and the plaintiff’s claim of failure to warn concerns an omission, not an

act. The Alabama Legislature plainly understood the difference between

acts and omissions, since Section 6-5-551 usesthe term“act or omission”

three times, such that its use of “act or acts” cannot easily be disregarded

as unintended or inconsequential. Limiting the requirement to acts also

makes sense because, while an act usually occurs at a specific site and at

a specific time that can be readily identified, an omission is almost

always ongoing and not easily described in terms of a specific time and

location.

16

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 16 of 17
Betts, 435 F. Supp. 2d at 1189. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, thatshe will be strictly

held to the statutory requirement to amend her complaint “timely upon ascertainment

of new or different acts or omissions upon which his claim is based.” Ala. Code § 6-5-

551 (1975).

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

In accordance with the foregoing, defendant’s motion to dismiss and for a more

definite statement is DENIED. Defendant must file an answer to plaintiff’s amended

complaint on or before July 21, 2010. Further, it is ORDERED that the stay on

discovery is lifted. The parties must meet and confer regarding a discovery plan

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), and they must submit a report of

that meeting on or before August 9, 2010. 

DONE this 8th day of July, 2010.

______________________________

United States District Judge

17

Case 5:10-cv-00578-CLS Document 23 Filed 07/09/10 Page 17 of 17