Ex Parte Brookwood Medical Center, Inc. (In re Janice Nixon v. Brookwood Medical Center, Inc.)
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
895 So. 2d 1000 (2004)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Janice Nixon (plaintiff) was employed by Brookwood Medical Center, Inc. (Brookwood) (defendant). In July of 2002, Nixon suffered a herniated disk in a workplace accident. Brookwood chose Dr. Carter Morris as Nixon’s treating physician. Nixon underwent treatment with Morris until August of 2003, when Morris referred Nixon to Dr. Matthew Berke for continued pain management. When Nixon returned to work, she told Brookwood that she was unhappy with Morris. In accordance with Alabama’s workers’-compensation statute, Brookwood provided Nixon with a list of four physicians from which she could choose a replacement provider. Nixon selected Dr. Martin Jones from the list. Jones also referred Nixon to Berke, who then referred Nixon to Dr. Ronald Moon for further pain management. Nixon skipped her appointment with Moon and requested that Brookwood provide her with another list of four physicians. Brookwood refused to provide another list but offered another doctor to replace Moon. Nixon rejected the alternate doctor and filed a motion in an Alabama trial court seeking to compel Brookwood to provide another four-physician list. The trial court granted Nixon’s request, and Brookwood petitioned the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rescind its order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pittman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
