Rebecca Jean Henriksen v. Charles Glenn Roth, D.M.D., P.C., and the Estate of Charles Glenn Roth

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the estate of Charles Glenn Roth and his professional corporation in a medical-liability action arising from dental surgery performed on Rebecca Henriksen. The court held that judicial estoppel did not bar the defendants from contesting Dr. Roth's disability status and found no reversible error in the trial court's jury instructions concerning consent and emergency medical treatment. The court also concluded that Henriksen's objection to the emergency-treatment instruction was not sufficiently specific to preserve the issue for appellate review.

Holdings

1. Judicial estoppel did not bar the defendants' position because the position that Dr. Roth was not totally disabled when he performed the procedure was not clearly inconsistent with his earlier position in the disability litigation, and the defendants could not obtain an unfair advantage through that position.
2. Henriksen's objection to the emergency-treatment instruction was not sufficiently specific to preserve any alleged instructional error for appellate review.
3. The trial court did not reversibly err by refusing Henriksen's requested instruction stating that a nonconsensual medical procedure constitutes assault and battery or trespass to the person.

Questions Presented

1. Whether judicial estoppel barred the defendants from arguing that Dr. Roth was not disabled when he performed the dental procedure.
2. Whether Henriksen preserved an appellate challenge to the trial court's emergency-treatment jury instruction under Rule 51, Ala. R. Civ. P.
3. Whether the trial court reversibly erred by refusing Henriksen's requested jury instruction stating that a nonconsensual medical procedure constitutes assault and battery or trespass to the person.

Disposition

affirmed