Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, one of the three dissenting justices, went as far as to write that the majority's opinion essentially implies that Baptist Health "is no longer legally responsible for the harm that may be caused by its negligence in providing health care to the citizens of this state."
What Cobb did not say is that UAB and the University of South Alabama Medical Center already might not be held legally responsible for the harm that they cause. Is the public aware of that? Is that what those who clamor for "states' rights" really want?
The Davis ruling raises many alarming legal issues, and we will be examining the case closely in future posts. But for now, let's take a quick look at the actions of Joe Espy. Espy is a Montgomery lawyer who serves on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. He also served as a lawyer for Baptist Health in the Davis case.
Does Espy's dual role as a board member at the University of Alabama and a lawyer for UA affiliate Baptist Health represent a conflict of interest? Does Espy stand to receive private gain as a result of his role on a public board? Did Espy make the ethics disclosures required by Board of Trustees' rules?
We will be examining these questions and more. The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in the Davis case clearly smells. The only question: How many levels will the stench reach?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
