Ex parte Spalding, et al. and Ex parte Maynor, et al., [Ms. SC-2025-0275 and SC-2025-0283, Aug. 29, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Sellers, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Cook, McCool, and Lewis, JJ., concur) issues a writ of mandamus directing the Madison Circuit Court to dismiss Arlene and Daniel Morgan’s medical negligence action because from the face of the complaint the action was barred by the four-year rule of repose in § 6-5-482(a), Ala. Code 1975 of the Alabama Medical Liability Act (“AMLA”). Arlene alleged that the defendants caused damage to her retina by negligently failing to discontinue her use of the prescription medication Plaquenil.
The Court reiterates
“The limitations period of § 6-5-482 commences with the accrual of a cause of action. Street v. City of Anniston, 381 So. 2d 26 (Ala. 1980); Bowlin Horn v. Citizens Hosp., 425 So. 2d 1065 (Ala. 1983); Ramey v. Guyton, 394 So. 2d 2 (Ala. 1981). A cause of action ‘accrues’ under § 6-5-482 when the act complained of results in legal injury to the plaintiff. Grabert v. Lightfoot, 571 So. 2d 293, 294 (Ala. 1990); Colburn v. Wilson, 570 So. 2d 652, 654 (Ala. 1990). The statutory limitations period begins to run whether or not the full amount of damages is apparent at the time of the first legal injury. Garrett v. Raytheon Co., 368 So. 2d 516, 518 (Ala. 1979). When the wrongful act or omission and the resulting legal injury do not occur simultaneously, the cause of action accrues and the limitations period of § 6-5-482 commences when the legal injury occurs. Moon v. Harco Drugs, Inc., 435 So. 2d 218, 219 (Ala. 1983); Ramey v. Guyton, 394 So. 2d 2, 4-5 (Ala. 1981).”
Ms. *7, quoting Mobile Infirmary v. Delchamps, 642 So. 2d 954, 958 (Ala. 1994).
In issuing the writ, the Court notes “the operative complaint specifically alleges that the ‘risk of harm associated with Plaquenil use increases exponentially with the duration of Plaquenil use’ and that, ‘on October 24, 2019, a Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography test revealed definitive signs of [retinal] toxicity.’” Ms. *11. The Court concludes “[i]n cases such as this, in which there has been no discovery, the dates and times alleged in the complaint are critical to evaluating whether the applicable statute of limitations bars the cause of action. Because, in this case, the Morgans allege that the first sign of a legal injury manifested on October 24, 2019, their medical-malpractice action, which was commenced almost five years later on October 22, 2024, was commenced well beyond the four-year period of repose set forth in § 6-5-482(a); thus, their action is barred.” Ms. *14.