Ex parte University of Alabama Health Services Foundation and Stephanie Reilly, M.D. [Ms. SC-2025-0356] __ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2026). The Court (Bryan, J., and Stewart, C.J., Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, and McCool, JJ., concur) reverses the Montgomery Circuit Court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that all tort claims were time-barred.
The family of Charles Edward Singleton, an Alabama inmate who died on November 2, 2021, sued several defendants, including the University of Alabama Health Services Foundation and Dr. Stephanie Reilly, alleging that Singleton’s organs were removed and retained during an autopsy without the family’s consent. The family learned on November 6, 2021 that Singleton’s body was transferred to the funeral home with his organs—including his brain—missing. The family was then told by a UAB pathology employee that organ retention was “standard practice.” The family learned on December 13, 2023 that UAB did not have the right to retain organs without permission from the next of kin. They filed suit in April 2024 asserting tort claims including conversion, fraud, wantonness, conspiracy, and outrage. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the tort claims are time-barred, and the family argued that the statutes of limitations were tolled because the defendants fraudulently concealed the illegality of the organ retention. The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that tolling and a six-year limitations period for conversion could apply.
On mandamus review, the Alabama Supreme Court reverses, holding that all tort claims were time-barred on the face of the complaint. The Court rules that the claims accrued no later than November 6, 2021, when the family learned the organs had been removed, and that later “discovery” of the alleged illegality amounted only to a reevaluation of known facts, insufficient to toll limitations under Ala. Code § 6-2-3. The Court also rejects arguments for a continuing tort and holds that the conversion claim was governed by a two-year statute of limitations because it was based on respondeat superior, not direct participation. Accordingly, the Court granted the writ of mandamus and orders dismissal of all claims against the petitioners except the statutory claim under the Alabama Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which was not before the Court.