Corbin v. Smith

842 So. 2d 610 (Ala. 2002) · Supreme Court of Alabama · April 19, 2002

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court held that a release discharging Dr. Timothy Corbin from liability in his capacity as medical director of a veterans home did not release claims against him in his separate capacity as Wilford Smith’s treating physician. The court concluded that the two roles involved distinct duties and that the release expressly reserved medical-malpractice claims against Corbin as a treating physician. It affirmed the denial of Corbin’s motion for summary judgment in the interlocutory appeal.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Moore; Moore; Harwood; Houston; Johnstone; Lyons; See; Stuart; Woodall; Brown
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Decision date
April 19, 2002
Procedural posture
Interlocutory appeal by permission under Rule 5, Ala. R. App. P., from the denial of Dr. Corbin's motion for summary judgment.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court reviewed the denial of summary judgment in the context of the permissive interlocutory appeal.
Precedential value
Published Alabama Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Dr. Timothy Corbin v. Wilford Smith's estate, through Terry Smith
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

medical malpracticecontract interpretationsummary judgmentinterlocutory appealappellate procedure

Practice areas

medical malpracticetortscontractscivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a release discharging Dr. Corbin from liability in his capacity as medical director of the Veterans Home also discharged him from liability in his separate capacity as Smith's treating physician when the alleged acts or omissions arose from the same incident.
  2. Whether the release barred the estate's medical-malpractice claim against Dr. Corbin as treating physician, thereby entitling him to summary judgment.

Holdings

  1. A release that expressly discharges Dr. Corbin for acts or omissions performed as medical director but expressly reserves claims against him for professional services as treating physician does not release liability arising from his distinct duties as treating physician, even when both capacities involve the same incident or conduct.
  2. Summary judgment was properly denied because the release did not preclude the treating-physician claim and a genuine issue of material fact remained concerning Dr. Corbin's liability.

Key quotations

acts performed by the same person in two different capacities ‘are generally treated as the transactions of two different legal personages.’ (614)
We do not consider such a position — that doctors can avoid medical-malpractice liability simply by wearing multiple hats — to be the law of Alabama. (615)
Separate liability gives rise to separate causes of action; thus, Terry is not barred from suing Dr. Corbin in his capacity as Wilford’s treating physician. (615)

Factual background

Wilford Smith, a resident of the Bill Nichols State Veterans Home, suffered a broken neck in a fall and allegedly sustained severe spinal-cord injuries when Dr. Timothy Corbin and responding nurses failed to stabilize him before moving him. Corbin served both as the Veterans Home's medical director and as Smith's treating physician. Smith's estate entered a $1 million pro tanto release discharging Corbin for acts performed as medical director but expressly reserving claims based on his professional services as treating physician.

Procedural history

Wilford Smith's estate sued Dr. Corbin and others for negligence and medical malpractice arising from Smith's fall and subsequent injuries and death. After the estate executed a pro tanto release discharging Dr. Corbin in his capacity as medical director but expressly reserving claims against him as treating physician, Dr. Corbin moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion and certified the order for an immediate appeal under Rule 5; the Supreme Court of Alabama granted permission and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…