Collins v. Herring Chiropractic Ctr., LLC

Citation: 237 So. 3d 867Docket: 1151173

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; February 16, 2017; Alabama; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Betty Collins appealed a summary judgment in favor of Ricardo Herring, D.C., and Herring Chiropractic Center, LLC, regarding her claims of medical malpractice stemming from the treatment of her knee injury. Collins received treatment from Dr. Herring starting in June 2012, which included the application of cold packs. On July 9, 2012, during a treatment session, a cold pack was applied to her knee, which Collins noted was harder than those used in prior sessions. After the treatment, she experienced heat upon removal of the pack, unlike previous sessions where her knee felt cold. Subsequently, she developed blisters and scars on her knee.

On July 7, 2014, Collins filed a lawsuit alleging medical malpractice due to the cold pack application. The defendants responded with a summary judgment motion, supported by Dr. Herring's affidavit asserting that he adhered to the standard of care, that the cold pack's application was appropriate, and that he did not cause Collins any injury. They contended that Collins failed to provide expert testimony required under the Alabama Medical Liability Act to support her claims.

Collins argued that her deposition testimony constituted sufficient evidence to warrant a jury's consideration of whether the cold pack caused her injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on June 24, 2016, leading Collins to appeal. The reviewing court applies a de novo standard and noted that once the defendants established no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifted to Collins to present substantial evidence to create such an issue, ultimately reversing and remanding the case.

Substantial evidence is defined as evidence that allows fair-minded individuals to reasonably infer the existence of the fact in question. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine material facts at issue and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Collins argues that the trial court incorrectly granted summary judgment to the defendants, asserting that expert testimony is not necessary to establish the standard of care or the causal link between the defendants' actions and her injuries in her medical-malpractice claim. Typically, a plaintiff must provide expert testimony from a similarly situated healthcare provider regarding the standard of care, any deviation from that standard, and the proximate cause of the injury. This requirement exists because causation in medical malpractice cases is usually beyond the understanding of a layperson.

Exceptions to the need for expert testimony include cases where: (1) a foreign object is found in a patient post-surgery; (2) the injury is unrelated to the treatment sought; (3) the plaintiff references an authoritative medical text; or (4) the plaintiff is a medical expert themselves. The Court in Ex parte HealthSouth Corp. clarified that these exceptions are illustrative and not exhaustive, particularly emphasizing that the first two exceptions pertain to cases of apparent lack of skill understandable by laypersons, while the latter two involve authoritative texts or plaintiff expertise.

In reviewing the evidence favorably for Collins at the summary-judgment stage, it was noted that Collins received treatment with a cold pack that had been in the refrigerator for seven days and was hard upon her arrival. After treatment, she experienced heat, developed blisters, and later scarring on her knee.

Collins was not required to present independent expert testimony in her medical malpractice case, as the issues related to her injuries were within the understanding of a layperson, particularly regarding frostbite. The case falls into a category where negligence is evident without expert analysis. Collins contended that expert testimony to establish causation was unnecessary, referencing Sorrell v. King, which mandates that a plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions were a probable cause of the injury rather than a mere possibility. In this instance, the defendants had exclusive control over the cold pack that caused Collins's injuries, and no evidence indicated that she contributed to her harm. The occurrence of blistering and scarring following use of the cold pack suggested negligence, as such effects are not typical without it. The causal link between Collins's injuries and the defendants' actions is sufficiently clear for a layperson to determine, negating the need for expert testimony. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings, with several justices concurring. The opinion noted precedents indicating that a plaintiff could rely on the defendant's testimony to establish necessary elements of a medical malpractice claim without needing an independent expert.