In any action for injury, damages, or wrongful death, whether in contract or in tort, against a health care provider for breach of the standard of care, whether resulting from acts or omissions in providing health care, or the hiring, training, supervision, retention, or termination of care givers, the Alabama Medical Liability Act shall govern the parameters of discovery and all aspects of the action. The plaintiff shall include in the complaint filed in the action a detailed specification and factual description of each act and omission alleged by plaintiff to render the health care provider liable to plaintiff and shall include when feasible and ascertainable the date, time, and place of the act or acts. The plaintiff shall amend his complaint timely upon ascertainment of new or different acts or omissions upon which his claim is based; provided, however, that any such amendment must be made at least 90 days before trial. Any complaint which fails to include such detailed specification and factual description of each act and omission shall be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any party shall be prohibited from conducting discovery with regard to any other act or omission or from introducing at trial evidence of any other act or omission.
(Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §12; Act 2000-387, p. 609, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
82
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case:
Brown v. Endo Pharm., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Ala. 2014).
Brown v. Endo Pharm., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Ala. 2014).
· cites it 16× “To satisfy this heavy burden, Endo contends that the Complaint does not state a claim against Stebbins because it fails to comport with the heightened pleading requirements of Alabama Code § 6-5-551, which governs wrongful déath actions “against a health care provider for breach…”
Ex Parte Pfizer, Inc., 746 So. 2d 960 (Ala. 1999).
· cites it 11× “, the plaintiff, be able to discover evidence of "any other act or omission," Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-551, which, in this case, would be records of other circumcisions performed by the defendant doctor.”
Ex Parte Anderson, 789 So. 2d 190 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 16× “resulting from acts or omissions in providing health care, ... the Alabama Medical Liability Act shall govern the parameters of discovery and all aspects of the action.”
Middleton v. Lightfoot, 885 So. 2d 111 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 10× “" Here, even if the evidence were relevant, the plain meaning of Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-551, would operate to exclude it.”
Mock v. Allen, 783 So. 2d 828 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 9× “' Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-551. Had the trial court not incorrectly concluded that the AMLA applied, that court would have had the discretion to admit or to exclude the proffered evidence, see, e.”
Ex Parte Coosa Valley Health Care, Inc., 789 So. 2d 208 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 15× “Coosa Valley contends that discovery of this information and these materials would contravene § 6-5-551, *210 Ala.Code 1975, a portion of the Medical Liability Act of 1987.”
Ex Parte Brookwood Med. Ctr., 994 So. 2d 264 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 15× “[would frustrate] the very purpose and intent of the Legislature in enacting Alabama Code [1975,] § 6-5-551," which is part of the Alabama Medical Liability Act, Ala.”
M.C. v. Tallassee Rehab., P.C., 201 So. 3d 525 (Ala. 2015).
· cites it 6× “Code 1975 (“the AMLA”), 2 which he argued applies, and specifically § 6-5-551, Ala.Code 1975, prohibits “conducting discovery with regard to any other act or omission or from introducing at trial evidence of any other act or omission.”
Long v. Wade, 980 So. 2d 378 (Ala. 2007).
· cites it 8× “In particular, § 6-5-551 provides: "In any action for injury, damages, or wrongful death, whether in contract or in tort, against a health care provider for breach of the standard of care, whether resulting from acts or omissions in providing health care, or the hiring,…”
Leiser v. Raymond R. Fletcher, Md, Pc, 978 So. 2d 700 (Ala. 2007).
· cites it 13× “, prior successful surgeries he had performed, that were not the subject of this action because such evidence violated § 6-5-551, Ala.Code 1975, and that the trial court had erred in denying her motion for a judgment as a matter of law because, she claimed, Dr.”
Ex Parte McCollough, 747 So. 2d 887 (Ala. 1999).
· cites it 20× “McCollough asks this Court to order the circuit court to "compel the requested discovery pursuant to a proper construction of the Alabama Medical Liability Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-551." Alternatively, Ms.”
Ware v. Timmons, 954 So. 2d 545 (Ala. 2006).
· cites it 5× “Ware as required under § 6-5-551[, Ala.Code 1975]." Although the defendants assert in their reply brief that "this fundamental oversight was raised by [the] Defendants," they acknowledge that they raised the issue only by arguing to the trial judge that there could be no…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.