Title: Trammer v. Bernstein
Citation: 596 So. 2d 572
Docket Number: 1900742
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: August 23, 1991

596 So. 2d 572 (1991)
George TRAMMER
v.
Dr. Michael BERNSTEIN.
1900742.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 23, 1991.
Rehearing Denied March 27, 1992.
*573 Thomas Allan Wingo, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
H.C. Ireland III of Porterfield, Harper &amp; Mills, Birmingham, for appellee.
ADAMS, Justice.
The plaintiff, George Trammer, appeals, contending that the trial court's determination that the statutory period of limitations had run with regard to his cause of action was error, and, therefore, that the summary judgment for the defendant was improper. We reverse and remand.
Between June 1987 and December 1987, the defendant, Dr. Michael Bernstein, performed two eye operations on George Trammer. Then, in December 1987, Dr. Bernstein allegedly advised Trammer that there was nothing further that Bernstein could do for him and that his vision should return to normal. Trammer contends that on March 17, 1988, he consulted another doctor and that that doctor said that he needed another operation in order to save his eye and that his eye would not, as stated by Dr. Bernstein, return to normal without the further surgery. Trammer sued Dr. Bernstein on March 16, 1990, alleging misrepresentation. The trial court entered a summary judgment for Dr. Bernstein, holding that the applicable statute of limitations was two years, pursuant to § 6-5-482(a), Code of Alabama (1975), and that the two years allowed had expired. Section 6-5-482 reads as follows:
§ 6-5-482, Code of Alabama (1975) (part of the Alabama Medical Liability Act, § 6-5-480 et seq.). Trammer contends that the two-year statutory period of limitations had *574 not run because, he argues, § 6-5-482(b) provides for the application of the "saving" provision of § 6-2-3, Code of Alabama (1975), to a cause of action for fraud or misrepresentation, with the express limitation that such an action would be barred if not brought within four years after the act, omission or failure complained of. See § 6-5-482, supra. Section 6-2-3 states:
At the outset, we note that in Benefield v. F. Hood Craddock Clinic, 456 So. 2d 52 (Ala.1984), we considered a claim brought by a woman alleging that her doctor had intentionally withheld information regarding certain medical problems she was having. Relying on § 6-2-3, Code of Alabama 1975, and not proceeding under § 6-5-482, she sued 10 years after the act or omission that she said injured her, alleging that that act or omission had been a fraudulent one. This Court stated:
Benefield v. F. Hood Craddock Clinic, 456 So. 2d 52, 53-54 (Ala.1984). In Benefield, the plaintiff was attempting to bring her cause of action out from under the Medical Liability Act because that Act provided that, notwithstanding the provisions of § 6-2-3, "no action shall be commenced more than four years after the act, omission or failure complained of." She filed her action 10 years after the act or omission. Therefore, her only possible way to recover was to attempt to bring her cause of action completely out from under the provisions of the Act. Such is not the case here. The plaintiff does not argue that his cause of action is not subject to the provisions of the Medical Liability Act; rather, he contends that the provisions of § 6-5-482(b) allow him to bring a fraud or misrepresentation action under the Medical Liability Act, subject to the two-year discovery rule of § 6-2-3 and the four-year maximum for such an action set forth in § 6-5-482(b). We agree.
Instructional on the issue before us is the case of Bowlin Horn v. Citizens Hospital, 425 So. 2d 1065 (Ala.1982). In that case, Justice Maddox considered the following issue:
425 So. 2d  at 1070. In that case, the plaintiff, Ms. Horn, sued her doctor in 1979 for having left a piece of a sweged needle in her during an appendectomy performed in 1971. 425 So. 2d  at 1066. This Court held that her action was barred, having been brought beyond the maximum limitations period of four years, and stated:
425 So. 2d  at 1070-72 (footnotes omitted) (some emphasis original, other emphasis added). It is clear to us from a reading of Bowlin Horn, that a plaintiff should be entitled to maintain an action based on fraud or misrepresentation arising out of an act or omission by a physician as long as that action was filed within two years of the discovery of the fraud or misrepresentation and within four years of the act or omission. This case differs from Smith v. Bay Minette Infirmary, 485 So. 2d 716 (Ala.1986), in that in Smith the plaintiff alleged negligence and not fraud. In Smith, Justice Shores stated:
485 So. 2d  at 717.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Trammer filed his action for misrepresentation against Dr. Bernstein within the statutory period of limitations.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and HOUSTON, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
MADDOX and STEAGALL, JJ., dissent.
*576 MADDOX, Justice (dissenting).
"The form of the action is not the decisive test in actions against physicians, surgeons and dentists for malpractice. The decisive test is the substance of the action." Sellers v. Edwards, 289 Ala. 2, 6, 265 So. 2d 438, 440 (1972). In this case, the majority of this Court has embraced form over substance and has allowed the plaintiff to bring a medical malpractice action in the guise of a claim alleging fraud and misrepresentation, thus avoiding the statute of limitations set out in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-482.
The facts, as set out in the majority's opinion, are relatively simple. In 1987, Dr. Michael Bernstein performed two eye operations on his patient, George Trammer. In December 1987, Dr. Bernstein informed Trammer that there was nothing further he could do for him, that his eye would return to normal, and that he would have no more pain. Thereafter, Trammer began experiencing pain in his eye and continued to lose his sight. On March 17, 1988, a second doctor informed Trammer that his eye would not return to normal and that another operation was required to save his eye. On March 16, 1990, Trammer filed suit against Dr. Bernstein. The trial court found that the true substance of Trammer's complaint was malpractice and that his claim was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
The pertinent section of the "Alabama Medical Liability Act" provides as follows:
§ 6-5-482(a).
This section was applied in Benefield v. F. Hood Craddock Clinic, 456 So. 2d 52 (Ala.1984). In Benefield, the plaintiff alleged that her physician had fraudulently misrepresented to her that she had a biological or medical condition that she did not in fact have. In reliance on her doctor's diagnosis, she decided not to have children and refused to obtain certain forms of medical care. Further, because of the information given her by her physician, she lived in fear of losing her life. In that case, this Court quoted, with approval, the trial court's judgment:
This Court then said:
456 So. 2d  at 54.
This case is like Benefield. Dr. Bernstein's opinion that Trammer would not suffer any future problems with his eye was clearly made as part of his post-operative treatment of Trammer and was clearly communicated during the course of his treatment of Trammer. It is axiomatic that Trammer's right of action accrued at that time and expired two years from that date, in December 1989. The statute specifically says that "[a]ll actions against [medical care providers], whether based on contract or tort" are barred if not commenced within two years next after the act or omission. A fraud action is a tort action. Thus, Trammer's complaint, filed on March 16, 1990, was filed outside the period of limitations and was barred, as correctly determined by the trial court.
This Court's majority opinion essentially construes the statute to read "all actions, except actions for misrepresentation or fraud" must be filed within two years, and the opinion has effectively established a precedent allowing a plaintiff to avoid the statute of limitations set forth in the Medical Liability Act by couching his or her *577 medical malpractice claim in terms of misrepresentation or fraud. A plaintiff may now avoid this two-year statute of limitations by merely alleging that the physician promised an outcome other than that experienced by the plaintiff. Essentially, for purposes of the two-year statute of limitations established by the Medical Liability Act, medical malpractice claims may now be brought as claims of misrepresentation or fraud after the two-year period has expired.
STEAGALL, J., concurs.