Opinion ID: 1725541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims against Deputy Warden Boutwell

Text: Pinkney bases her claims against Charles Boutwell on allegations that Boutwell had a duty to ensure that inmates received prompt medical care when necessary and that, although Boutwell had had direct knowledge, over at least a two-week period, that Williams's health was deteriorating, he nevertheless refused to allow Williams to keep his appointments with an outside VA hospital. We note that, according to the record, the assistant warden's job description requires him to insure that each inmate receives prompt medical attention when necessary. The record shows that, during a period of approximately two weeks before Williams was hospitalized on November 28, Pinkney made numerous telephone calls to Janet Findley to report that her son was very ill. However, the evidence does not show that Boutwell had direct knowledge of Williams's condition, until November 17. On that day, Pinkney telephoned Findley and informed her that she had scheduled an appointment for Williams to be examined at a local VA hospital on November 19. Findley advised Pinkney that, because the appointment had not been made through the prison and adequate supervision of Williams could not be arranged on such short notice, the appointment would have to be canceled. Findley obtained approval from QuestCare physicians to allow Williams to be examined outside the prison, then rescheduled the appointment at the local VA hospital. Findley informed Boutwell that she had made the appointment for Williams. Williams did not keep the appointment Findley made for him, and this is the crux of Pinkney's claim against Boutwell; Pinkney argues that, although Boutwell's determining whether to allow Williams to see an outside doctor was a discretionary act, Boutwell performed the act maliciously by failing to enable Williams to keep his VA hospital appointment. As to the first appointment, it is clear that Boutwell himself was not involved in canceling it; rather, his secretary determined that it had not been made pursuant to the procedures Draper requires to be followed when an inmate is allowed to go beyond the grounds of the prison. [2] As to the second appointment, which Findley made for Williams, Boutwell points out that the appointment was made for November 30, two days after Williams was admitted to the Montgomery Regional Medical Center. Pinkney does not dispute the date of the appointment. Clearly, there was no reason for Boutwell to arrange for Williams to keep his November 30 appointment, when Williams was undergoing emergency treatment at another outside hospital. There is no evidence to support a finding that Boutwell maliciously or willfully failed to obtain reasonable medical care for Williams. The trial court, therefore, erred in denying Boutwell's motion for a summary judgment based upon discretionary-function immunity. A writ of mandamus should be issued only where the petitioner has a clear legal right to the order sought and has no other adequate remedy. C & G Development v. Planning Comm'n of the City of Homewood, 548 So.2d 451 (Ala.1989). Davis and Boutwell have demonstrated that, based on the defense of sovereign immunity, they have a clear legal right to a judgment on Pinkney's claims against them. Their petition for the writ of mandamus is granted. PETITION GRANTED. HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, and SEE, JJ., concur. COOK, J., dissents.