Title: Ex parte Baptist Health System, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Baptist Health Systems, Inc. v. Ola Osborne)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1041914
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 6, 2007

REL:04/06/2007 Ex parte Baptist Health System, Inc.
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)
242-4621), 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
OCTOBER TERM, 2006-2007
____________________
1041914
____________________
Ex parte Baptist Health System, Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Baptist Health System, Inc.
v.
Ola Osborne)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-00-2369;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2030565)
SMITH, Justice.
Baptist Health System, Inc., petitioned for a writ of
certiorari seeking review of the Court of Civil Appeals' no-
opinion affirmance of an order of the Montgomery Circuit Court
in a workers' compensation case Ola Osborne brought against
Baptist Health.  Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. Osborne (No.
1041914
2
2030565, June 30, 2005), ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2005)
(table).  We granted the petition, issued the writ, and
directed the parties to submit briefs.  Because the order of
the trial court from which Baptist Health appealed is not a
final judgment, however, we now quash the writ.
Facts and Procedural History
On September 12, 2000, Osborne filed a workers'
compensation action against Baptist Health in the Montgomery
Circuit Court.  Osborne's claim was based on an on-the-job
injury to her back she sustained on October 7, 1998, while
working for Baptist Health.  After a hearing at which the
parties submitted evidence and presented testimony, the trial
court entered an "order of judgment" setting forth its
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
The trial court's order required Baptist Health (1) to
begin paying benefits to Osborne based on permanent total
disability; (2) to pay Osborne a lump sum representing accrued
temporary and permanent total-disability benefits; (3) to
indemnify Osborne from any subrogation interest asserted
against her; and (4)  to pay all past, present, and future
medical expenses related to Osborne's treatment for her on-
1041914
Amici curiae briefs have been filed by Alabama Council
1
of Associated Workers' Compensation Self-Insurers' Funds; the
Associated General Contractors Workers Compensation Self-
Insurers Fund, the Alabama Truckers Association Workers
Compensation Self-Insurers Fund, and Marshall Durbin, Inc.;
and the Alabama Trial Lawyers Association.
3
the-job injury, including reimbursing Osborne for any out-of-
pocket medical expenses she actually incurred after February
11, 1999, the date Baptist Health refused to pay for
additional medical treatment, until the date of the trial
court's order.
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the order of the
trial court,  without an opinion.  This Court granted Baptist
Health's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Discussion
The merits of the substantive issues in this appeal have
been extensively briefed by the parties and by amici curiae.1
Unfortunately, however, the order from which Baptist Health
appeals is not a final judgment, and the Court of Civil
Appeals therefore did not have jurisdiction to consider the
merits of the underlying action.
"Although neither party has questioned [the Court of
Civil Appeals'] appellate jurisdiction, we must consider
1041914
4
whether [it had] jurisdiction over this appeal because
'jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take
notice of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu.'"
Williams Power, Inc. v. Johnson, 880 So. 2d 459, 461 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2003) (quoting Nunn v. Baker, 518 So. 2d 711, 712
(Ala. 1987)). 
"'An appeal will ordinarily lie only from a
final 
judgment; 
that 
is, 
a 
judgment 
that
conclusively determines the issues before the court
and ascertains and declares the rights of the
parties.'  Palughi v. Dow, 659 So. 2d 112, 113 (Ala.
1995).  For a judgment to be final, it must put an
end to the proceedings and leave nothing for further
adjudication.  Ex parte Wharfhouse Rest. & Oyster
Bar, Inc., 796 So. 2d 316, 320 (Ala. 2001).
'[W]ithout a final judgment, this Court is without
jurisdiction to hear an appeal.' Cates v. Bush, 293
Ala. 535, 537, 307 So. 2d 6, 8 (1975)."
Hamilton v. Connally, [Ms. 1050655, Dec. 8, 2006] ___ So. 2d
___, ___ (Ala. 2006). 
This Court has noted: 
"[I]t must be remembered that '[d]amages are [an
element] of a claim to vindicate a legal right.'
Grantham v. Vanderzyl, 802 So. 2d 1077, 1080 (Ala.
2001).
"'Where the amount of damages is an issue, ...
the recognized rule of law in Alabama is that no
appeal will lie from a judgment which does not
adjudicate that issue by ascertainment of the amount
of those damages.'  Moody v. State ex rel. Payne,
351 So. 2d 547, 551 (Ala. 1977).  'That a judgment
1041914
5
is not final when the amount of damages has not been
fixed by it is unquestionable.'  'Automatic'
Sprinkler Corp. of America v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 351
So. 2d 555, 557 (Ala. 1977)."
Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., 892 So. 2d 354, 361-
62 (Ala. 2004).
In Williams Power, the Court of Civil Appeals held that
an order in a workers' compensation case purporting to award
damages for past medical expenses was not a final judgment,
because the order did not specify the amount of those
expenses.  880 So. 2d at 460-61.  The Court of Civil Appeals
stated:
"'It is well established that a final
judgment is a "terminal decision which
demonstrates there has been a complete
adjudication of all matters in controversy
between 
the 
litigants." 
 
Tidwell 
v.
Tidwell, 496 So. 2d 91, 92 (Ala. Civ. App.
1986).  Further, the judgment must be
conclusive and certain with all matters
decided, 
including 
the 
assessment 
of
damages with specificity for a sum certain
determinable 
without 
resorting 
to
extraneous facts.'
"Dees v. State, 563 So. 2d 1059, 1061 (Ala. Civ.
App. 1990) (emphasis added).  See, e.g., Moody v.
State ex rel. Payne, 351 So. 2d 547, 551 (Ala. 1977)
('Where the amount of damages is an issue ... the
recognized rule of law in Alabama is that no appeal
will lie from a judgment which does not adjudicate
that issue by ascertainment of the amount of those
damages.').  In this case, the amount of damages
1041914
6
pertaining 
to 
past 
medical 
expenses 
was 
not
specified by the trial court, and, thus, the appeal
has been taken from a nonfinal judgment.
"In GAF Corp. v. Poston, 656 So. 2d 1225 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1995), the issue before this court was the
payment 
of 
medical 
expenses 
for 
the 
medical
treatment 
rendered 
to 
the 
employee 
for 
his
work-related injury.  This court explained that 'the
trial court specifically detailed the periods of
treatment and the corresponding amount of expenses;
however, only a few of these amounts are reflected
in the exhibits the worker submitted as evidence of
the amount of medical expenses.' Poston, 656 So. 2d
at 1228.  This court concluded:
"'Although the trial court did not err in
its 
findings 
regarding 
the 
company's
liability 
for 
the 
medical 
treatments
performed by Dr. Rodning, we are unable to
determine if the trial court determined the
correct amount of medical expenses from the
record. We remand the cause for the trial
court to determine the proper amount of
medical expenses which are supported by the
record.'
"Poston, 656 So. 2d at 1228.
"Unlike Poston, in the present case the trial
court did not make an award of a sum certain for
past medical expenses.  Therefore, its order was not
a final judgment.  A nonfinal judgment will not
support an appeal.  Bacadam Outdoor Adver., Inc. v.
Kennard, 721 So. 2d 226 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998).  We
therefore dismiss the appeal."
880 So. 2d at 461.
In this case, the trial court specified the amount of
damages it was awarding to Osborne for permanent total
1041914
7
disability and for accrued temporary and permanent total
disability.  By ordering Baptist Health to pay for all past
medical expenses related to Osborne's treatment since her on-
the-job injury including reimbursing Osborne for any out-of-
pocket medical expenses she incurred after February 11, 1999,
until the date of the trial court's order, the trial court
determined that Baptist Health is liable for those past
medical expenses.  However, the trial court's order does not
state a sum certain representing the amount of those past
medical expenses. 
Because the trial court in this case has not specified
the amount of damages to be awarded to Osborne for past
medical expenses, the trial court has not rendered a final
judgment that will support an appeal.  Dzwonkowski, 892 So. 2d
at 361-62; Williams Power, 880 So. 2d at 461.  Consequently,
the Court of Civil Appeals was without jurisdiction to issue
its no-opinion affirmance of the trial court's order,
Hamilton, ___ So. 2d at ___ ; Dzwonkowski, 892 So. 2d at 361-
62; Williams Power, 880 So. 2d at 461; its order, therefore,
is void.  Boykin v. Law, 946 So. 2d 838, 844 (Ala. 2006) ("'A
lack of jurisdiction, either over the person or over the
1041914
8
subject matter[,] renders a judgment void.'" (quoting Nigg v.
Smith, 415 So. 2d 1082, 1084 (Ala. 1982))).
Because the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is
void, Baptist Health still can pursue an appeal as a matter of
right after the trial court's judgment has been made final.
The writ of certiorari is "issued to promote the ends of
justice, no other adequate remedy being available."  Ex parte
Sellers, 250 Ala. 87, 88, 33 So. 2d 349, 350 (1948); see also
Huggins v. State, 278 Ala. 18, 18, 174 So. 2d 697, 697 (1965)
("The common-law writ of certiorari will not, in general, be
issued '"where the party has a remedy by appeal to correct the
irregularity or injustice of which he complains."'" (quoting
Alabama Great Southern R.R. v. Christian, 82 Ala. 307, 309, 1
So. 121, 122 (1887))). 
Conclusion
The writ of certiorari previously issued is quashed.
WRIT QUASHED.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, and
Parker, JJ., concur.  
Murdock, J., recuses himself.