Opinion ID: 1857738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts as Alleged in Previto's Complaint

Text: Our sole source of information concerning the underlying events comes from the complaint Previto filed to institute her action. She avers in the complaint that on September 19, 2002, she sought the advice of Dr. Mendel regarding the possibility of remedying, through the use of dental implants, a dental condition from which she suffered. Dr. Mendel recommended dental implants as the best option and treatment for Previto's condition. Dr. Mendel explained to Previto that although dental implants were more expensive than alternative dental-care options, the superior results would be worth the extra expense; he additionally represented to her that he was as competent, skilled and capable of performing the various phases of the implant surgery as other dentists. However, Dr. Mendel at no time mentioned to [Previto] that his license had been suspended on numerous occasions by various dental boards in more than one state. Dr. Mendel performed the dental-implant surgery on Previto on November 25, 2002. She contends that during the procedure Dr. Mendel punctured the floor of her right maxillary sinus, that he incorrectly placed the implants in her mouth, and that he failed to complete the surgery. Finally, Previto alleges, neither Dr. Mendel nor his staff ever sought to correct or remedy the mistakes they allegedly made. She asserts that at all times Dr. Mendel was working within the line and scope of his employment with Family Dental and Mobile Family. Previto sued Dr. Mendel, Family Dental, and Mobile Family in 2004, stating five causes of action for which she sought relief. The first cause of action was premised on liability under the Alabama Medical Liability Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-480 et seq. and § 6-5-540 et seq., based on the defendants' alleged numerous specified negligent acts or omissions. Among those alleged acts and omissions were the defendants' failure to obtain Previto's informed consent to undergo the surgery and their failure to inform and/or disclose to [Previto] that [Dr. Mendel's] license to practice dentistry had been suspended and/or revoked on multiple occasions. Previto's second cause of action was based on the defendants' alleged breach of contract. The third cause of action was based on the defendants' alleged misrepresentations to Previto regarding the care and competence with which the procedure would be conducted. Previto's fourth cause of action was based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentation by Dr. Mendel, who, Previto argues, as her regular dentist was under an obligation to communicate to [her] the fact that his license had been suspended in numerous States by governing dental boards and associations, but who at no time communicated to [her] that his license to practice dentistry had every [sic] been suspended and/or revoked for any period of time. Previto asserted that that information constituted a material fact, which, had she known it, would have caused her to refrain from undergoing the surgery. Previto's fifth and final cause of action was based on the defendants' alleged willful misrepresentation of Dr. Mendel's competence and willful failure to disclose that he had been reprimanded by numerous dental review boards and had received suspensions and/or revocations in numerous states. Of particular importance to this petition are the portions of Previto's complaint alleging that Dr. Mendel had failed to disclose to her that he had been reprimanded by numerous dental review boards and that his dental license had been suspended or revoked on multiple occasions in numerous states; thus, she says, he failed to obtain her informed consent to the surgery and misrepresented and/or suppressed material facts. On December 22, 2004, Previto noticed her intent to serve a subpoena upon the Alabama Board of Dental Examiners (the Dental Board). That subpoena (hereinafter referred to as the Dental Board subpoena) would command the Dental Board to produce any and all reports, correspondence, memoranda, notes, complaints, files, and all other documents or materials of any type, kind or description, whether in written, printed or electronic form, which reference or in any way relate to [Dr. Mendel] and his practice of dentistry and/or implant dentistry and/or dental surgery, including, but not limited to, any and all complaints filed against Dr. Mendel, and all documents and materials of any type, kind or description which reference or in way [sic] relate to any such complaints. The defendants objected to the Dental Board subpoena and moved to quash it, asserting that the materials sought were privileged and protected under § 6-5-551 and § 6-5-333(d), Ala.Code 1975. Previto filed a response, with a supporting brief, to the defendants' objection to, and motion to quash, the Dental Board subpoena, and the Dental Board filed its own motion to quash and/or objection to the proposed subpoena. Shortly after they moved to quash the Dental Board subpoena, the defendants moved for a partial summary judgment, contending that because a dentist has no common-law or statutory duty to disclose professional reprimands or licensure suspensions or revocations to his patients, Previto's licensure claims did not represent cognizable causes of action and therefore were due to be dismissed. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a partial summary judgment, as well as their subsequent motion to reconsider, and their motion to certify the underlying issue for permissive appeal pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P. On June 9, 2005, Previto noticed the video deposition of Dr. Mendel. In her notice, which contained a section labeled duces tecum, Previto requested that Dr. Mendel produce some 22 types of documents, including: 18. Full and complete copies of any and all notes, memorandums, correspondence, e-mails, files, forms or other documents, whether in written or electronic form, which would in any way relate to any revocation, suspension or termination of any medical or dental license held by [Dr. Mendel] in any State or country. The defendants objected to the duces tecum feature of the notice (referring to it as a subpoena duces tecum; the notice, therefore, is hereinafter referred to as the Mendel subpoena), and moved to quash it, or, in the alternative, for a protective order, relying in part, again, on § 6-5-551, Ala.Code 1975. On June 27, 2005, the trial court denied in part the respective motions of the defendants and the Dental Board to quash the Dental Board subpoena stating, however, that the [Dental] Board shall produce any formal notice of charges, final order or transcript of proceeding involving any matter resulting in formal discipline against [Dr. Mendel] or any non-privileged documents which resulted in a finding of a violation of the Alabama Dental Practice Act. The court granted those motions [i]n all other respects; it did not address the defendants' objection to and motion to quash the Mendel subpoena. On July 1, the defendants filed a motion seeking a protective order relating to the June 27 order and a motion requesting that the court review in camera any documents produced by the Dental Board pursuant to that order to determine whether it should enter a protective order relative to same, referencing once again §§ 6-5-551 and 6-5-333(d), Ala.Code 1975. At some point, not identified by the parties' submissions, the Dental Board produced certain materials for the court's in camera inspection. On July 7, 2005, the court conducted a hearing on the defendants' motion for a protective order, their motion for an in camera inspection, and their still-pending objection to and motion to quash the Mendel subpoena. On October 3, 2005, the court entered an order denying the defendants' motion for a protective order; that order states: [T]he defendants' motion for protective order is hereby DENIED. Those in camera materials received from the [Dental Board] will remain within the court file, under seal. The [Dental Board] is ordered to produce those same materials, in compliance with this Court's order of June 27, 2005, not before the seventh (7th) day after execution of this order. With respect to the Mendel subpoena, the order stated: After due consideration of the arguments by counsel for all parties, written briefs, exhibits, review of the court file, and an in camera inspection, the court finds and hereby orders that the defendants' objection and motion to quash, or, in the alternative, motion for protective order is hereby DENIED. The court had implicitly granted the defendants' motion for an in camera inspection and had conducted the inspection. The defendants timely petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its October 3 discovery order and requiring the lower court to enter a protective order regarding the proffered `licensure' discovery, whether relative to the [Dental Board subpoena] or [the Mendel subpoena]. As they had in the trial court, the defendants contended that the discovery was precluded by §§ 6-5-551 and 6-5-333(d). We ordered answer and briefs on the issue whether the trial court's order . . . disregarded a privilege.