Alabama Supreme Court tosses medical malpractice lawsuit over vision loss, says it was filed too late

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) — The Supreme Court of Alabama has tossed out a medical malpractice lawsuit filed in Madison County against several health-care providers, finding it was filed past the four-year deadline set by the statute of repose.

The lawsuit alleged that Arlene Morgan spoke with several doctors, all of whom ignored her complaints that there were issues with her vision after taking a prescribed medication for longer than recommended. The lawsuit made multiple claims against the defendants.

The defendants — Maynor & Mitchell Eye Center, P.C.; Jennifer B. Martin, O.D.; University of Alabama Health Services Foundation, P.C.; David Murl Spalding, M.D.; and Vanessa Kay Hill, CRNP — filed a motion to dismiss in April.

A Madison County Circuit judge denied that motion following a hearing, so the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama.

In August, the Alabama Supreme Court found that the lawsuit was filed “well beyond the four-year period of repose.” This means that the defendants had a legal right to the claims being dismissed.

The Supreme Court opinion outlined the timeline described in the lawsuit:

The lawsuit claimed that in July 2013, Morgan spoke with Dr. Spalding, a rheumatologist at the Kirklin Clinic of UAB Hospital, about complaints of joint pain. He later diagnosed her with erosive inflammatory osteoarthritis.

Dr. Spalding prescribed her Hydroxychloroquine, commonly known as Plaquenil. The drug can pose the risk of “retinopathy or damage to the retina,’ which the lawsuit claims can also lead to severe or permanent loss of vision.

The lawsuit said that annual screening is required for patients on the medication and “must begin no later than five years after a patient has started taking Plaquenil.” It added that the goal of the screening is to recognize signs of toxicity early enough to prevent any loss of vision.

Morgan claimed that she saw Dr. Martin at Maynor & Mitchell Eye Center in October 2019. The lawsuit stated that Dr. Martin should have known to provide Morgan with both an automated visual field test and a spectral domain optical coherence tomography.

Dr. Martin did not provide an automated visual field test. However, the SD OCT was performed. The lawsuit claimed that it revealed “localized thinning of the photoreceptor layers in the parafoveal region of [Morgan’s] eyes.”

The lawsuit argued that Dr. Martin should have known that the thinning was a “strong indicator of toxicity,” but chose to allow Morgan to continue taking Plaquenil, despite the SD OCT, which revealed “definitive signs of toxicity.”

In November 2019, Morgan visited Dr. Spalding’s office again, where he did not discontinue her prescription for Plaquenil.

Nearly a year later, in 2020, the lawsuit stated that Morgan told Dr. Martin that she had been seeing a glare on headlights and indicated that she was not driving at night due to her vision. The lawsuit continued said that Dr. Martin chose again not to issue either of the two required tests to screen for Plaquenil retinopathy, but allowed Morgan to continue taking the medication.

In May 2022, the lawsuit says Hill, nurse practitioner at the Kirklin Clinic of UAB Hospital, chose not to discontinue Morgan’s Plaquenil prescription.

About six months later, when Morgan returned to her office, Dr. Martin performed both the visual field test and the SD OCT. The lawsuit said that the SD OCT showed “significant thinning” of the photoreceptor layers in Morgan’s eyes.

Following the results of the test, Dr. Martin referred Morgan to Dr. Alexander Talalight for possible Plaquenil toxicity and instructed her to stop taking the drug. The lawsuit stated that a month later, Dr. Talalight diagnosed Morgan with “toxic maculopathy of both eyes due to Plaquenil.”

The high court’s order directs the trial court to dismiss the claims against the defendants.