News
1/12/2007 - Supreme Court Orders Dismissal of Doctor and Gastroenterology Group
MONTGOMERY--The Alabama Supreme Court today ordered a Montgomery County trial court to dismiss a medical malpractice case based on the statute of limitations. Plaintiff had been injured while attempting to climb down from an examination table. She sued the doctor and his gastroenterology group under the Alabama Medical Liability Act (“AMLA”). Plaintiff later amended her complaint to assert violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The defendants removed the case to federal court, which later entered summary judgment on the ADA claims in favor of the defendants. The federal court elected not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the AMLA claims; it dismissed those claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, providing that Plaintiff could refile those claims in state court because the limitations period for filing the claims was tolled during the pendency of the ADA claims in the federal court.Approximately one year after the entry of the order in the federal court, Plaintiff filed in the Montgomery Circuit Court a "motion to reinstate action." Defendants responded and opposed the motion, arguing that the statute of limitations barred reinstatement because Plaintiff did not refile her action in the state court within 30 days after the entry of the federal court's order, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). The trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the action. The Supreme Court of Alabama granted Defendants’ permissive to appeal under Rule 5, Ala. R. App. P., to answer the question whether the reinstatement of the action in the state court was barred by the statute of limitations.The Supreme Court held that once the removal was effectuated, the state trial court was divested of jurisdiction over the underlying case and could not, in the absence of an order of remand, take any further action regarding the case. Because Plaintiff did not refile her action in the state court within the time frame afforded by federal law, her subsequent attempt to have the action reinstated was time-barred, and the trial court's order reinstating her case was contrary to the applicable statute of limitations. Consequently, the order of the trial court reinstating the case was reversed. The case was remanded for the trial court to vacate its order and to dismiss Plaintiff’s action.Defendants were represented by L. Peyton Chapman, III and Bethany L. Bolger of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A. The plaintiff was represented by J. Myron Smith.Alabama Supreme Court Case No. 1050261.