Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama for its Division University of Alabama Hospital in Birmingham v. Jackie Pepper Richards, as administrator of the Estate of Carlton Comer Richards, (Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court: CV-20-900161).

Rel: June 7, 2024

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
_________________________

CL-2023-0849
_________________________

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama for its Division
University of Alabama Hospital in Birmingham

v.

Jackie Pepper Richards, as administrator of the Estate of
Carlton Comer Richards, deceased

Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court
(CV-20-900161)

LEWIS, Judge.

The Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama for its Division

University of Alabama Hospital in Birmingham ("UAB") appeals from a

judgment entered by the St. Clair Circuit Court ("the trial court")
CL-2023-0849

apportioning interpleaded settlement funds ("the funds") from a

personal-injury lawsuit. The funds were apportioned among the

following: UAB; the estate of Carlton Comer Richards ("the estate");

Mann & Potter, P.C., the attorneys for the estate; the United States

Department of Veterans Affairs ("the VA"); and Regional Paramedical

Services. We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case with

instructions.

Procedural History

On August 19, 2020, Carlton Comer Richards filed a complaint in

the trial court seeking damages arising out of a motor-vehicle accident.

Richards named the following defendants: Artavius Devontay Garrett;

Alabama Motor Express, Inc.; Alfa Mutual Insurance Company; and

multiple fictitiously named defendants. The named defendants filed

separate answers to the complaint.

On January 7, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal,

requesting that the trial court dismiss the case, with prejudice, because

the claims had been resolved. On January 11, 2022, the trial court

entered a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Six days later,

on January 17, 2022, Richards filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate

2
CL-2023-0849

the judgment. In that motion, Richards asserted that he had intended to

dismiss only his claims against the named defendants. He requested that

the trial court reinstate his claims against "real parties in interest." After

a hearing, the trial court entered an order on March 23, 2022, that

amended its previous judgment by stating that Richards's claims

remained pending against certain real parties in interest, specifically,

Medicare; TriCare; the VA; UAB; the University of Alabama Health

Services Foundation, P.C. ("UAHSF"); "[a]ll other medical providers

and/or facilities that claim [] an interest in the settlement monies;" and

"[a]ll other health insurance providers that claim a reimbursement

and/or subrogation interest from the settlement monies." The trial court

granted Richards leave to add parties to the action and to interplead the

funds.1

1"[A] trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion to amend

a complaint to add new claims or new parties after a final judgment has
been entered, unless that 'judgment is first set aside or vacated' pursuant
to the state's rules of civil procedure." Faith Props., LLC v. First Com.
Bank, 988 So. 2d 485, 490 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Greene v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court of Nevada, 115 Nev. 391, 393, 990 P. 2d 184, 185 (1999)).
Here, because Richards filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the
judgment within 30 days from the date of the January 11, 2022,
judgment, the trial court had jurisdiction to amend that judgment.
3
CL-2023-0849

On September 1, 2022, Richards filed his first amended complaint,

adding, "as proper party defendants," the VA, UAB, and UAHSF. UAB

thereafter filed a motion for a more definite statement. The trial court

granted UAB's motion on September 27, 2022. On December 14, 2022,

Jackie Pepper Richards, as administrator of the estate, filed a second

amended and restated complaint and a more definite statement. 2 The

estate noted that a settlement agreement had been made; that the funds

had been interpleaded; and that UAB, UAHSF, and the VA "are allegedly

owed monies for medical treatment of [Richards] for the injuries he

sustained in the [motor-vehicle accident] made the basis of this action."

The estate requested that the trial court determine the portion of the

funds due to UAB, UAHSF, and the VA, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, §

35-11-373.

2The record does not contain evidence indicating the date of
Richards's death or an order recognizing Jackie as the administrator of
Richards's estate. Nor does the record contain an order substituting
Jackie, in her representative capacity, as the plaintiff. However, based
on Jackie's filing of the second amended complaint, we assume Richards's
death, as well as Jackie's appointment as administrator and her
substitution as plaintiff. We have, therefore, adjusted the style of this
appeal accordingly.
4
CL-2023-0849

On June 2, 2023, UAHSF answered the complaint, disclaiming any

interest in the funds and requesting to be dismissed as a party to the

action. UAB filed its answer on August 17, 2023, asserting a lien in the

amount of $17,942.80 against the funds.

On July 31, 2023, the estate filed a motion requesting that the trial

court set a hearing concerning the disbursement of the funds. The estate

set forth the amount of the respective liens as follows: UAB's hospital

lien in the amount of $17,942.80; the VA's subrogation interest in the

amount of $14,170.73; Regional Paramedical Services' balance in the

amount of $1,355; and attorney's "expenses" in the amount of $5,534. The

estate's motion stated that the funds were insufficient to pay all the

medical providers in full and requested that the trial court order the

disbursement of the funds as follows: "one-third (1/3) to the Plaintiff,

Carlton Richard; one-third (1/3) to Plaintiff's counsel; and one-third (1/3)

divided equally to UAB …, [the] VA, and Regional Paramedical

Services."3

3Richards's trial attorney stated at a later hearing on September 5,

2023, discussed, infra, that he had agreed to reduce his fee from 45% of
the funds to 1/3 of the funds.
5
CL-2023-0849

On August 17, 2023, UAB responded to the estate's motion and

submitted a copy of the "Notice of Hospital Lien" filed by UAB with the

Jefferson Probate Court on September 22, 2021; a statement of

Richards's account with UAB; and an affidavit of a hospital employee

attesting to the reasonableness of UAB's charges to Richards.

After a September 5, 2023, hearing, the trial court entered a

judgment that same day. On September 12, 2023, UAB filed a motion to

alter, amend, or vacate the judgment or, in the alternative, to stay the

distribution of the funds pending an appeal of the judgment. On

September 29, 2023, the estate filed a supplemental motion seeking

disbursement of the funds. The estate attached a letter from an attorney

for the VA, in which the VA agreed to accept $11,310.37 "as satisfaction

in full" of its claim.

On October 19, 2023, the trial court entered a judgment that

appears to be identical to its September 5, 2023, judgment. The trial

court's October judgment ordered the disbursement of the funds as

follows: $15,000 to the attorneys who represented the estate; $15,000 to

the estate; $8,793.00 to UAB Hospital; $5,542.50 to the VA; 4 and $664.50

4The VA's subrogation interest was $11,310.37.

6
CL-2023-0849

to Regional Paramedical Services. The trial court specifically ruled that

the amounts received by the parties constituted "full and final payment"

for their services and that the estate was "discharged from any liability

to the medical providers." UAB filed its notice of appeal to this court on

November 28, 2023. 5

Discussion

On appeal, UAB argues that, pursuant to § 35-11-373, Ala. Code

1975, because the amount of the funds was sufficient to satisfy its lien,

the trial court was not permitted to reduce UAB's recovery to less than

its reasonable charges.

Before proceeding to the merits of the arguments, we must first

address the threshold issue of jurisdiction. The estate argues that this

appeal is from the entry of an injunction requiring the notice of appeal to

have been filed within 14 days from the entry of the judgment ordering

the injunction. In support of its argument, the estate cites Rule

5Although the funds have been disbursed, UAB asserts, and the

estate does not dispute, that UAB has not negotiated the check for the
portion of the funds it was awarded. Moreover, even if UAB succeeds on
this appeal, it would not receive a smaller portion of the settlement
proceeds. Therefore, we conclude that the disbursement of the funds does
not moot the appeal. See Alco Land & Timber Co. v. Baer, 289 Ala. 567,
571, 269 So. 2d 99, 102 (1972).
7
CL-2023-0849

4(a)(1)(A), Ala. R. App. P., which provides that "the notice of appeal shall

be filed within 14 days (2 weeks) of the date of the entry of the order or

judgment appealed from … any interlocutory order granting, continuing,

modifying, refusing, or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to dissolve or

to modify an injunction." (Emphasis added.) The estate also cites Blevins

v. Thomas R. Boller, P.C., 257 So. 3d 859, 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), which

involved an attempted appeal from an interlocutory order concerning an

injunction. However, the estate does not argue that the judgment in this

case was an interlocutory order. According to the plain language of Rule

4(a)(1)(A), only interlocutory orders that order an injunction are subject

to the 14-day time limitation for taking an appeal. Because the judgment

in this case was a final judgment, the estate's argument on this point is

misplaced. See Rule 4(a)(1)(A); see also Bekken v. Greystone Residential

Ass'n, 227 So. 3d 1201, 1213 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (recognizing that a

final judgment granting an injunction was not subject to the 14-day time

limit to appeal set forth in Rule 4(a)(1)(A)).

We also note, with respect to jurisdiction, that, in Roberts v.

University of Alabama Hospital, 27 So. 3d 512, 514 n.1 (Ala. Civ. App.

8
CL-2023-0849

2008), this court concluded that the Jefferson Circuit Court had

jurisdiction to determine the amount of the liens when:

"(1) the Robertses interpleaded the drafts that had been
issued by the liability insurer of the tortfeasors and that had
represented the amounts of the claimed hospital liens, (2) the
hospital was expressly added as a party in this case, and (3)
the trial court in this case entered its judgment determining
the amount of the pertinent hospital liens after the Robertses'
tort claims had been settled and dismissed."

Similarly, in this case, the funds were interpleaded; UAB and the

other lienholders were added as parties to the case; and the judgment

determining the amount of the respective liens was entered after the

settlement and dismissal of the tort claims. Therefore, in keeping with

Roberts, 27 So. 3d at 514 n.1, we conclude that the trial court had

jurisdiction in this case to determine the amount of the liens at issue.

Additionally, we recognize that the estate argues that UAB did not

comply with the technical requirements set forth in § 35-11-371, Ala.

Code 1975, relating to UAB's timely perfecting its lien. However, our

supreme court has explained that "the patient ha[s] no standing to claim

that an untimely filing invalidated the lien, because the purpose of the

filing was to notify third parties, not the patient, of the claim." Ex parte

Infinity S. Ins., 737 So. 2d 463, 465 (Ala. 1999). Moreover, our supreme

9
CL-2023-0849

court has held that, where the parties to an action had "actual knowledge

of [certain] hospitals' liens, the hospitals' failure to provide constructive

notice … is immaterial to the validity and enforceability of the liens."

Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama ex rel. Univ. of Alabama Hosp. v.

American Res. Ins. Co., 5 So. 3d 521, 531 (Ala. 2008). Similarly, the

parties to this case had actual knowledge of the existence of UAB's lien.

Therefore, we conclude that any noncompliance with the technical

requirements set forth in § 35-11-371 on the part of UAB has no effect on

the enforceability of UAB's lien.

We now turn to the merits of UAB's arguments.

Section 35-11-370, Ala. Code 1975, provides:

"Any person, firm, hospital authority, or corporation
operating a hospital in this state shall have a lien for all
reasonable charges for hospital care, treatment, and
maintenance of an injured person who entered such hospital
within one week after receiving such injuries, upon any and
all actions, claims, counterclaims, and demands accruing to
the person to whom such care, treatment, or maintenance was
furnished, or accruing to the legal representatives of such
person, and upon all judgments, settlements, and settlement
agreements entered into by virtue thereof on account of
injuries giving rise to such actions, claims, counterclaims,
demands, judgments, settlements, or settlement agreements
and which necessitated such hospital care, subject, however,
to any attorney's lien."

10
CL-2023-0849

"This section was intended to give hospitals and other health care

providers an automatic lien for the reasonable value of their services."

Ex parte Infinity, 737 So. 2d at 464.

Section 35-11-373, Ala. Code 1975, describes the jurisdiction of a

court to determine the distribution of the proceeds of a judgment in cases

involving a hospital lien as follows:

"In any case where the action, claim, counterclaim or
demand accruing to the person to whom hospital care has
been furnished has been reduced to judgment in a court
having jurisdiction thereof, said court shall have full
jurisdiction to determine the amount due on the lien on proper
written petition by any party interested therein and shall
have full power to adjudicate all matters in connection with
said hospital lien and to provide by order of the court for the
manner in which the proceeds of said judgment shall be
distributed. …"

In this case, UAB presented an affidavit of its employee declaring

that its charges to Richards were reasonable. It does not appear that the

reasonableness of the charges was in dispute. The issue is whether,

without any evidence to dispute the evidence of the reasonableness of the

charges, the trial court properly reduced UAB's lien and ruled that the

judgment constituted "full and final payment" of UAB's lien.

As previously stated, § 35-11-370 gives hospitals an "automatic lien

for the reasonable value of their services." Ex parte Infinity, 737 So. 2d

11
CL-2023-0849

at 464. That lien, however, is subject to a lien for an attorney's fee. In

this case, the trial court's judgment arbitrarily apportioned the

settlement proceedings in the following manner -- one-third of the

proceeds to the estate; one-third of the proceeds to attorney's fees; and

one-third of the proceeds to be divided among the remaining lienholders

(including UAB). Although the estate points out that Rule 22, Ala. R.

Civ. P., and § 35-11-373 vest the trial court with jurisdiction to enter an

order disbursing the funds, the trial court is not authorized to contravene

the plain language of § 35-11-370. Here, the trial court clearly violated §

35-11-370 in its apportionment of the funds, both by its limitation of the

amount of UAB's lien as against the funds and by barring UAB's right to

seek satisfaction of its lien subsequent to the entry of the judgment.

Based on the foregoing, the trial court's judgment is reversed. On

remand, the trial court is directed to enter a judgment apportioning the

settlement funds in accordance with § 35-11-370. Moreover, if the trial

court determines that the settlement funds are inadequate to satisfy

UAB's lien, even when UAB's lien is given its statutory priority, the trial

court's judgment must not impair UAB's right to seek complete

satisfaction of its lien outside of the context of the present action.

12
CL-2023-0849

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

13