Medical Liability Act of 1987.

Ala. Code tit. 6, ch. 5, art. 29

in effect

Ala. Code § 6-5-540 Legislative Intent.

6-5-540. Legislative Intent. It is hereby declared by the Legislature of the State of Alabama that a crisis threatens the delivery of medical services to the people of Alabama and the health and safety of the citizens of this state are in jeopardy. In accordance with the previous declaration of Legislature contained in Act 513 of the Regular Session of the 1975 Alabama Legislature it is the declared intent of this Legislature to insure that quality medical services continue to be available at reasonable costs to the citizens of the State of Alabama. This Legislature finds and declares that the increasing threat of legal actions for alleged medical injury causes and contributes to an increase in health care costs and places a heavy burden upon those who can least afford such increases, and that the threat of such actions contributes to expensive medical procedures to be performed by physicians and other health care providers which otherwise would not be considered necessary, and that the spiraling costs and decreasing availability of essential medical services caused by the threat of such litigation constitutes a danger to the health and safety of the citizens of this state, and that this article should be given effect immediately to help control the spiraling cost of health care and to insure its continued availability. Additionally, the Legislature finds that the increasing threat of legal actions for alleged medical injury has resulted in a limitation on the number of physicians providing specialized health care in this state. Because of the limited number of insurers offering professional liability coverage and because of the prejudice to the rights of the defendant health care provider through the interjection of evidence of insurance, the Legislature finds that the interest of all citizens will best be served by prohibiting the introduction of evidence that a witness testifying at trial is insured by the same insurer as the defendant health care provider. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §1.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-541 Short Title; Construction.

6-5-541. Short Title; Construction. This article may be cited and known as “The Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987” and is intended to supplement “The Alabama Medical Liability Act,” Act No. 513 of the 1975 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature. The provisions of this article shall be construed so as to be consistent with Act No. 513 of the 1975 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature and the legislative intent stated herein. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §2.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-542 Definitions.

6-5-542. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: (1) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER. A medical practitioner, dental practitioner, medical institution, physician, dentist, hospital, or other health care provider as those terms are defined in Section 6-5-481. (2) STANDARD OF CARE. The standard of care is that level of such reasonable care, skill, and diligence as other similarly situated health care providers in the same general line of practice, ordinarily have and exercise in like cases. A breach of the standard of care is the failure by a health care provider to comply with the standard of care, which failure proximately causes personal injury or wrongful death. This definition applies to all actions for injuries or damages or wrongful death whether in contract or tort and whether based on intentional or unintentional conduct. (3) FUTURE DAMAGES. Damages for future medical treatment, care, or custody, loss of future earnings, future loss of earning capacity, future loss of bodily function, future loss of consortium, or future pain and suffering. (4) PERIODIC PAYMENT. The payment of money or delivery of other property to the judgment creditor at regular intervals. (5) SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Substantial evidence is that character of admissible evidence which would convince an unprejudiced thinking mind of the truth of the fact to which the evidence is directed. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §3.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-543 Damages Against Health Care Provider to Be Itemized; Future Damages Over $150,000 to Be Paid by Periodic Payments Over Period of Years; Judgment to Specify Payment Terms; Requirement to Post Security or Provide Evidence of Insurance; Future Damages Not to Be Reduced to Present Value; Attorney’s Fees; Termination of Periodic Payments; Contempt of Court Upon Continuing Pattern of Failure to Make Payments; Modification of Judgment; Legislative Intent.

6-5-543. Damages Against Health Care Provider to Be Itemized; Future Damages Over $150,000 to Be Paid by Periodic Payments Over Period of Years; Judgment to Specify Payment Terms; Requirement to Post Security or Provide Evidence of Insurance; Future Damages Not to Be Reduced to Present Value; Attorney’s Fees; Termination of Periodic Payments; Contempt of Court Upon Continuing Pattern of Failure to Make Payments; Modification of Judgment; Legislative Intent. (a) In any action for injury or damages whether in contract or in tort against a health care provider based on a breach of the standard of care the damages assessed by the trier of fact shall be itemized as follows: (1) Past damages, (2) Future damages, (3) Punitive damages. The trier of fact shall not reduce any future damages to present value. If the trial court determines that any one or more of the above categories is not recoverable in the action, that category or categories shall be omitted from the itemization. (b) Where the damages assessed against a defendant or defendants by the trier of fact include an award of future damages, the trial court shall comply with the following in rendering its judgment in the case: (1) Judgment shall be entered against the defendants for all past damages and punitive damages assessed against the defendants by the trier of fact; (2)a. If the award of future damages assessed by the trier of fact is $150,000 or less, the trial court shall enter judgment against the defendants for the amount of such future damages. b. If the award of future damages assessed by the trier of fact is greater than $150,000, the trial court shall (i) enter judgment against the defendants for $150,000 of such future damages and (ii) enter judgment requiring the defendants to pay the balance of such future damages in excess of $150,000 by periodic payments over a period of years not to exceed such period of years as, according to the evidence offered during the trial of the case, such future damages may be incurred. In entering a judgment against the defendants ordering the payment of future damages by periodic payments the trial court shall make a specific finding as to the dollar amount of periodic payments which will compensate the judgment creditor for such future damages as the same may be incurred, as determined from the evidence offered during the trial of the case. If, or to the extent that, the evidence offered at trial did not indicate the approximate time or timeframe within which the future damages would be incurred, the trial court, for the purpose of determining the amount of periodic payments and the interval between such payments, shall conclusively presume that such damages will be incurred throughout the life expectancy of the judgment creditor on an equal monthly basis. The judgment ordering payment of future damages by periodic payments shall specify the recipient or recipients of the payments, the dollar amounts of the payments, the interval between payments, and the number of payments or the period of time over which payments shall be made. The total amount of all such periodic payments when added to the sum of $150,000 and when added to that portion of the future damages award utilized for the payment of a portion of the attorney’s fees owed by the judgment creditor shall not exceed the total amount of future damages contained in the verdict. (c) As a condition to authorizing periodic payments for future damages the court shall require that the defendants either post security sufficient to assure full payment of such damages, or provide evidence the defendants have insurance sufficient to pay the periodic payments as the same become due and that the insurance company which is obligated to pay the judgment holds a certificate of authority in this state, or purchase an annuity of sufficient value to pay the future damages. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting the authority of the trial court to order a new trial, enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or order a remittitur of damages. The provisions of this section shall also apply to any judgment entered following remittitur. (d) The future damages shall not be reduced to present value and no interest is to be charged on said damages. No evidence shall be received by the trier of fact concerning the present value of such future damages except pursuant to this subsection. If, as part of the plaintiff’s contract with his attorney, the plaintiff is obligated to pay his attorney a fee based on that portion of the award of future damages which exceeds $150,000, the court shall determine what portion of the award of future damages in excess of $150,000 is owed to the attorney under the contract and shall enter judgment for the remainder of the award of future damages in excess of $150,000 as provided in subsection (b)(2)b. As to that portion of the award of future damages in excess of $150,000 which is owed to the plaintiff’s attorney, that portion shall be reduced to present value by the court, utilizing the life expectancy of the judgment creditor, and judgment shall be entered against the defendant for the reduced amount. (e) Where a judgment is entered for the payment of future damages by periodic payments the following shall apply: (1) If the judgment creditor dies before the termination of the period of years during which such payments are to be made, the liability of the judgment debtor and every entity or person who has assumed his obligations to pay the judgment creditor shall cease and the estate of the judgment creditor shall have no claim for such payments, except that damages awarded for loss of future earnings as determined by the court shall not be reduced or payments terminated by reason of the death of the judgment creditor but shall be paid to a spouse or children, or both, to whom the judgment creditor owed a duty of support, as provided by law, immediately before his death. (2) Such duty of support shall be deemed to cease upon the death or remarriage of a spouse or the death or attainment of age 22 years by a child, provided, however, that upon the death of a spouse leaving children to whom the judgment creditor owed a duty of support as set out above, payments due the spouse shall be paid to the children until they attain the age 22 years. The death of a child under 22 years of age terminates all payments to him. (3) In the event the court finds that the judgment debtor has exhibited a continuing pattern of failure to make payments as specified in this section, the court shall find the judgment debtor in contempt of court and, in addition to the required periodic payments, shall order the judgment debtor to pay the judgment creditor all damages caused by the failure to make such periodic payments, including court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. In addition, where an installment payment is more than 20 days late, there shall be added to the amount due for that installment interest from the date payment was due at the rate of 20 percent per annum compounded daily, and attorney’s fee if necessary to collect the amount due. (f) The court which rendered the original judgment may, upon petition of any party in interest, modify the judgment to award and apportion the unpaid future damages in accordance with subsection (e) of this section. Following the occurrence or expiration of all obligations specified in the periodic payment judgment, any obligation of the judgment debtor to make future payments shall cease and any security given shall revert to the judgment debtor. (g) In the event periodic payments are ordered under this section, the court shall order the judgment marked satisfied when the judgment debtor satisfies the court that he is adequately insured or posts security sufficient to assure full payment of such damages or purchases an annuity of sufficient value as set out in subsection (c) of this section. (h) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to require the entry of judgments in malpractice actions against health care providers which provide for the payment of future damages in excess of $150,000 through periodic payments rather than lump sum payments. By authorizing periodic payment of judgments as required herein it is the intent of the Legislature that the courts will utilize such judgments to provide compensation sufficient to meet the needs of an injured plaintiff and those persons who are dependent upon the plaintiff for the period of years during which said future damages may be incurred, and to eliminate the potential windfall from a lump sum recovery which was intended to provide for the care of an injured plaintiff over an extended period who then dies shortly after the judgment is paid, leaving the balance of the judgment award to persons and purposes for which it is not intended. It is also the intent of the Legislature that all elements of the periodic payment program be specified with certainty in the judgment ordering such payments. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §4.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-544 Recovery of Noneconomic Losses; Limitation of Such Losses; Mistrial If Jury Advised of Limitation.

6-5-544. Recovery of Noneconomic Losses; Limitation of Such Losses; Mistrial If Jury Advised of Limitation. (a) In any action for injury whether in contract or in tort against a health care provider based on a breach of the standard of care, the injured plaintiff and spouse upon proper proof may be entitled to recover noneconomic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium, and other nonpecuniary damage. (b) In no action shall the amount of recovery for noneconomic losses, including punitive damages, either to the injured plaintiff, the plaintiff’s spouse, or other lawful dependents or any of them together exceed the sum of $400,000. Plaintiff shall not seek recovery in any amount greater than the amounts described herein for noneconomic losses. During the trial of any action neither the court nor any party shall advise or infer to the jury that it may not return an award for noneconomic losses in excess of an amount specified herein; in the event the jury is so advised or such inference is made, the trial court, upon motion of an opposing party, shall immediately declare a mistrial. Any verdict returned which includes an award for noneconomic losses in an amount greater than that permitted herein shall be reduced by the trial court to an amount which will include an award of noneconomic losses no greater than that permitted herein or to such lesser sums as the trial court deems appropriate in accordance with prevailing standards for reducing excessive verdicts. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §5.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-545 Evidence Admissible That Medical Expenses Will Be Reimbursed; Information Subject to Discovery.

6-5-545. Evidence Admissible That Medical Expenses Will Be Reimbursed; Information Subject to Discovery. (a) In all actions where damages for any medical or hospital expenses are claimed and are legally recoverable for personal injury or death, evidence that the plaintiff’s medical or hospital expenses have been or will be paid or reimbursed shall be admissible as competent evidence. In such actions upon admission of evidence respecting reimbursement or payment of medical or hospital expenses, the plaintiff shall be entitled to introduce evidence of the cost of obtaining reimbursement or payment of medical or hospital expenses. (b) In such civil actions, information respecting such reimbursement or payment obtained or such reimbursement or payment which may be obtained by the plaintiff for medical or hospital expenses shall be subject to discovery. (c) Upon proof by the plaintiff to the court that the plaintiff is obligated to repay the medical or hospital expenses which have been or will be paid or reimbursed, evidence relating to such reimbursement or payment shall be admissible. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §6.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-546 Venue of Actions; Transfer.

6-5-546. Venue of Actions; Transfer. In any action for injury or damages or wrongful death whether in contract or in tort against a health care provider based on a breach of the standard of care, the action must be brought in the county wherein the act or omission constituting the alleged breach of the standard of care by the defendant actually occurred. If plaintiff alleges that plaintiff’s injuries or plaintiff’s decedent’s death resulted from acts or omissions which took place in more than one county within the State of Alabama, the action must be brought in the county wherein the plaintiff resided at the time of the act or omission, if the action is one for personal injuries, or wherein the plaintiff’s decedent resided at the time of the act or omission if the action is one for wrongful death. If at any time prior to the commencement of the trial of the action it is shown that the plaintiff’s injuries or plaintiff’s decedent’s death did not result from acts or omissions which took place in more than one county, on motion of any defendant the court shall transfer the action to such county wherein the alleged acts or omissions actually occurred. For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a court may transfer any action to any other county where it might have been brought hereunder and/or may order a separate trial as to any claim or party. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §7.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-547 One Million Dollar Limit on Judgments; Mistrial If Jury Advised of Limitation.

6-5-547. One Million Dollar Limit on Judgments; Mistrial If Jury Advised of Limitation. In any action commenced pursuant to Section 6-5-391 or Section 6-5-410, against a health care provider whether in contract or in tort based on a breach of the standard of care the amount of any judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff shall not exceed the sum of $1,000,000. Any verdict returned in any such action which exceeds $1,000,000 shall be reduced to $1,000,000 by the trial court or such lesser sum as the trial court deems appropriate in accordance with prevailing standards for reducing excessive verdicts. During the trial of any action brought pursuant to Section 6-5-391 or 6-5-410 neither the court nor any party shall advise or infer to the jury that it may not return a verdict in excess of $1,000,000; in the event the jury is so advised or such inference is made the court, upon motion of an opposing party, shall immediately declare a mistrial. The maximum amount payable under this section, $1,000,000, shall be adjusted on April fifteenth of each year to reflect any increase or decrease during the preceding calendar year in the Consumer Price Index of the United States Department of Commerce. Said adjustment shall equal the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index during the preceding calendar year. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §8.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-548 Burden of Proof; Reasonable Care as Similarly Situated Health Care Provider; No Evidence Admitted of Medical Liability Insurance.

6-5-548. Burden of Proof; Reasonable Care as Similarly Situated Health Care Provider; No Evidence Admitted of Medical Liability Insurance. (a) In any action for injury or damages or wrongful death, whether in contract or in tort, against a health care provider for breach of the standard of care, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving by substantial evidence that the health care provider failed to exercise such reasonable care, skill, and diligence as other similarly situated health care providers in the same general line of practice ordinarily have and exercise in a like case. (b) Notwithstanding any provision of the Alabama Rules of Evidence to the contrary, if the health care provider whose breach of the standard of care is claimed to have created the cause of action is not certified by an appropriate American board as being a specialist, is not trained and experienced in a medical specialty, or does not hold himself or herself out as a specialist, a “similarly situated health care provider” is one who meets all of the following qualifications: (1) Is licensed by the appropriate regulatory board or agency of this or some other state. (2) Is trained and experienced in the same discipline or school of practice. (3) Has practiced in the same discipline or school of practice during the year preceding the date that the alleged breach of the standard of care occurred. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of the Alabama Rules of Evidence to the contrary, if the health care provider whose breach of the standard of care is claimed to have created the cause of action is certified by an appropriate American board as a specialist, is trained and experienced in a medical specialty, and holds himself or herself out as a specialist, a “similarly situated health care provider” is one who meets all of the following requirements: (1) Is licensed by the appropriate regulatory board or agency of this or some other state. (2) Is trained and experienced in the same specialty. (3) Is certified by an appropriate American board in the same specialty. (4) Has practiced in this specialty during the year preceding the date that the alleged breach of the standard of care occurred. (d) Notwithstanding any provision of the Alabama Rules of Evidence to the contrary, no evidence shall be admitted or received, whether of a substantive nature or for impeachment purposes, concerning the medical liability insurance, or medical insurance carrier, or any interest in an insurer that insures medical or other professional liability, of any witness presenting testimony as a “similarly situated health care provider” under the provisions of this section or of any defendant. The limits of liability insurance coverage available to a health care provider shall not be discoverable in any action for injury or damages or wrongful death, whether in contract or tort, against a health care provider for an alleged breach of the standard of care. (e) The purpose of this section is to establish a relative standard of care for health care providers. A health care provider may testify as an expert witness in any action for injury or damages against another health care provider based on a breach of the standard of care only if he or she is a “similarly situated health care provider” as defined above. It is the intent of the Legislature that in the event the defendant health care provider is certified by an appropriate American board or in a particular specialty and is practicing that specialty at the time of the alleged breach of the standard of care, a health care provider may testify as an expert witness with respect to an alleged breach of the standard of care in any action for injury, damages, or wrongful death against another health care provider only if he or she is certified by the same American board in the same specialty. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §9; Acts 1996, No. 96-511, p. 650, §3.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-549 Standard of Proof Shall Be Proof by Substantial Evidence; Scintilla Rule of Evidence Abolished; Instruction to Jury.

6-5-549. Standard of Proof Shall Be Proof by Substantial Evidence; Scintilla Rule of Evidence Abolished; Instruction to Jury. In any action for injury or damages or wrongful death, whether in contract or in tort, against a health care provider based on a breach of the standard of care, the minimum standard of proof required to test the sufficiency of the evidence to support any issue of fact shall be proof by substantial evidence. In all such actions, whether arising in tort or in contract, the scintilla rule of evidence is abolished. In all pleadings or motions filed in such actions testing the sufficiency of the evidence to support an issue of fact, including, but not limited to, motions for summary judgment, motions for directed verdict, motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and any other such motions or pleadings respecting the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard of proof required shall be proof by substantial evidence. In the case of a jury trial, the jury shall be instructed that in order to return a verdict against a health care provider, the jury shall be reasonably satisfied by substantial evidence that the health care provider failed to comply with the standard of care and that such failure probably caused the injury or death in question. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §10; Acts 1996, No. 96-511, p. 650, §3.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-549.1 Limits of Liability Insurance Coverage in Legal Action Against Health Care Providers; Testimony of Health Care Providers as Specialists.

6-5-549.1. Limits of Liability Insurance Coverage in Legal Action Against Health Care Providers; Testimony of Health Care Providers as Specialists. (a) This section and Sections 6-5-548 and 6-5-549 shall be known and may be cited as The Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1996. (b) The Legislature of the State of Alabama finds and declares that a crisis continues to threaten the delivery and availability of medical services to the people of Alabama and the health and safety of the citizens of this state are in jeopardy as a result of this crisis. In accordance with the previous declarations of the Legislature of Alabama in Sections 6-5-480 to 6-5-488, inclusive, 27-26-1 to 27-26-4, inclusive, 27-26-20 to 27-26-43, inclusive, and Sections 6-5-540 to 6-5-552, inclusive, it is the declared intent of this Legislature to ensure that quality medical services continue to be available at reasonable costs to the citizens of the State of Alabama. The continuing and ever increasing threat of legal actions for alleged medical injury causes and contributes to an increase in health care costs and places a heavy burden on those who can least afford such increases. The threat of such actions contributes to the performance of expensive medical procedures by physicians and other health care providers which otherwise would not be considered necessary. The spiraling cost and decreasing availability of essential medical services caused by the threat of litigation constitutes a danger to the health and safety of the citizens of this state. This section and Sections 6-5-548 and 6-5-549 should be given effect immediately to help control the spiraling cost of health care and to ensure its continuing availability. Additionally, the increasing threat of legal actions for alleged medical injury has resulted in a continuing limitation on the number of physicians providing specialized health care in this state. Because of the limited number of insurers offering professional liability coverage and because of the prejudice to the rights of defendant health care providers through the interjection of evidence of insurance, the interest of all citizens will best be served by prohibiting the introduction of evidence that a witness testifying at trial is insured by the same insurer as the defendant health care provider. (c) For the purposes of this section and Sections 6-5-548 and 6-5-549, the terms used shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in Section 6-5-542. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this section and Sections 6-5-548 and 6-5-549, the term “health care provider” shall include any licensed optometrist or licensed chiropractor and the term “professional corporation” shall include any optometric or chiropractic professional corporation or optometric or chiropractic professional association; and, for purposes of this section and Sections 6-5-548(a) and 6-5-549, the term “health care provider” shall include any licensed podiatrist and the term “professional corporation” shall include any podiatric professional corporation or podiatric professional association; and for purposes of this section and Sections 6-5-548 and 6-5-549, the term “health care provider” shall include emergency medical services personnel and any provider service as those terms are defined in Section 22-18-1. However, subsection (e) does not apply to licensed optometrists and optometric professional corporations or licensed chiropractors and chiropractic professional associations. (d) This section and Sections 6-5-548 and 6-5-549 are intended to supplement “The Alabama Medical Liability Act,” Act 513, 1975 Regular Session and “The Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987,” Act 87-189, 1987 Regular Session and the legislative intent stated therein. (e) This section and Sections 6-5-548 and 6-5-549 apply to all actions pending against health care providers at the time of the effective date of the sections. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not apply to an action filed against a podiatrist prior to March 7, 2006. (Acts 1996, No. 96-511, p. 650, §§1, 2, 4-6; Act 2006-191, p. 269, §1; Act 2023-103, §1.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-550 Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution of Civil Action Against Health Care Provider.

6-5-550. Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution of Civil Action Against Health Care Provider. There is hereby created a cause of action for damages for malicious prosecution on the grounds that the party instituting a civil action for injury or damages whether in contract or in tort against a health care provider based on a breach of the standard of care knew or should have known that the same was without adequate legal basis, or false, or unfounded, or without probable cause in the filing of such action, or that the same was filed as a part of a conspiracy to misuse judicial process by filing such a civil action known to be without legal basis, false, or unfounded. In any action for malicious prosecution under this section, the injured party may recover actual damages including litigation costs paid by or on behalf of the injured party or in the alternative liquidated damages of $500 plus a reasonable attorney’s fee and all other costs of litigation. In an action for malicious prosecution under this section, actual malice need not be an element of the claim nor do special damages need to be proved. The elimination of these requirements in permitting the recovery of actual damages or liquidated damages, a reasonable attorney’s fee and other costs of litigation is intended to be in derogation of the common law. The cause of action established by this section is not a compulsory counterclaim in the original civil action upon which it is based for the purposes of Rule 13, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §11.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-551 Complaint to Detail Circumstances Rendering Provider Liable; Discovery.

6-5-551. Complaint to Detail Circumstances Rendering Provider Liable; Discovery. 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.)

Ala. Code § 6-5-552 Application.

6-5-552. Application. This article applies to all actions against health care providers based on acts or omissions accruing after June 11, 1987, and as to such causes of action, shall supersede any inconsistent provision of law. (Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §13.)

Source: Alabama Legislature (alison.legislature.state.al.us)URL: https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/code-of-alabamaFetched: 10/20/2026