CULLMAN, Ala. – Physician pay proposals were one part of Cullman Regional Medical Center’s cost-cutting discussions detailed in records examined in part 1 of “Aging out?” Records in a separate lawsuit describe the March 2023 termination of cardiology nurse Amanda McCormick and reassignment of her pacemaker clinic duties to an existing practice coordinator.
“I retained all of my other responsibilities as Physician Practice Coordinator and none of my other duties were removed or modified to account for my new Pacemaker Clinic duties,” Glenda Pelfrey said in her declaration.
McCormick sued, alleging age discrimination. CRMC denied discrimination and said its employment decisions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors.
U.S. District Judge Harold D. Mooty III granted CRMC summary judgment Aug. 14, 2026. The accompanying “Final Judgment” dismissed McCormick’s complaint with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case.
The court concluded that Pelfrey replaced McCormick for purposes of its age-discrimination analysis, but found that Pelfrey was substantially older than McCormick.
McCormick therefore did not establish replacement by a substantially younger person, one element of the initial legal test the court applied.
The court then considered her other circumstantial evidence and found it insufficient to support an inference of intentional age discrimination.
“For all the reasons explained above, McCormick has failed to present sufficient circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmakers,” Mooty wrote in “Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
Schinley Land, CRMC’s executive director of physician services, said in her declaration that she initially considered assigning McCormick’s pacemaker clinic duties to certified registered nurse practitioner Ace Beam.
“Mr. Beam never performed any of Ms. McCormick’s former duties with the Pacemaker Clinic,” Land said. “Instead, I assigned Ms. McCormick’s Pacemaker Clinic duties to the Clinic’s practice manager, Glenda Pelfrey.”
Land said Pelfrey was not a nurse, specifying that she was not a clinical medical assistant, licensed practical nurse or registered nurse.
Pelfrey listed monitoring remote device reports, retrieving reports from manufacturers’ portals, printing reports and providing them to a cardiologist, scanning reports and physicians’ notes into charts, billing and communicating with patients among her duties.
She said she also coordinated the pacemaker clinic, which occurred approximately three days a month.
“I performed all of the duties associated with the Pacemaker Clinic until approximately May 19, 2025,” Pelfrey said. “At that time, Cullman Regional hired CV Remote Solutions to perform many of the monitoring, reporting and billing duties associated with the Pacemaker Clinic. I am still responsible for coordinating the Pacemaker Clinic when it occurs.”
In her deposition, McCormick described reviewing pacemaker reports for device function, battery life and alerts.
“I’m looking to see if it’s functioning properly. I’m looking to see the battery life. I’m looking to see if there’s been any alerts or activities that would suggest that they needed to be brought into the clinic sooner rather than later,” McCormick said.
Asked whether she viewed that work as a clinical or clerical duty, McCormick answered, “Clinical.” She also testified that she relayed the information and her interpretation to the cardiologist.
Land gave a different assessment in her declaration, saying she determined McCormick’s cardiology clinic duties were “primarily clerical” and that McCormick worked directly with a limited volume of patients during pacemaker clinic days.
“In my judgment, Ms. McCormick’s duties could be assigned to other employees,” Land said. “As a result, Ms. McCormick could be terminated from employment and CRMC would receive commensurate cost savings with that termination.”
Before McCormick’s termination, Katie Walker, patient access, communications and resource scheduling manager, addressed a proposed assignment of cardiology precertification work in a Jan. 25, 2023 email titled “Authorizations.”
“Unless she is going to work full time M-F this would not be possible for her to do,” Walker wrote. She said working two or three days a week would cause scheduling backlogs and prevent patients from getting in on time for return visits. She requested a meeting to discuss the assignment.
“The goal for Amanda has always been for her to be productive and helpful, supporting as much cardiology schedule as possible. However, we do not intend for this to ever impede or delay patient care. Please work with Glenda to discuss the current delays and what can and cannot be handled by Amanda,” Land replied.
In a separate April 17, 2023, exit interview, cardiology nurse Lauren Dixon marked management, work environment and work schedule as factors that affected her decision to leave CRMC “A great deal.” Her written explanation included “constantly adding more work and more providers but cutting hours and staff.”
Dixon selected “Never enough time” when asked whether she had enough time to complete her job. She also wrote that she was unable to take a lunch break at least two or three days a week to finish her work with the staffing and hours available.
Dixon selected “Fair and accurate” to describe her supervisor’s performance assessments. Asked what she liked best about her position, she wrote, “The people and physicians I work with, being able to care for and have a relationship with my patients.”
In her April 10 resignation letter, Dixon said she was leaving to accept another job and identified April 24 as her last working day.
Patient follow-up also appears in records filed in Dr. Hansel Noffsinger’s separate lawsuit. Emails dated June 16, 2022, addressed who would receive his patients’ test results, how orders would be handled and how patients would be notified that he was no longer seeing patients for CRMC.
“His order is valid. The problem comes into play on who will be receiving the results,” Susan Borden wrote. “I would say front end. This way we ensure results are routed to the appropriate provider.”
Later that day, Land sent Lisa Courtney a proposal that included “Void all open/orders not complete,” followed by a physician’s review of the information and placement of a new order if needed. Land said the proposal would cover lab and imaging orders.
The proposal also called for a 30-day refill of noncontrolled medications, with patients scheduled to establish care with a new provider, and an office evaluation for controlled medications.
Courtney replied at 4:22 p.m., “I’m good with it,” but instructed staff to call the patient before canceling a diagnostic or lab order the patient believed was scheduled. Her reply concluded, “we better call the patient.”
In an earlier email that afternoon, Courtney wrote, “We are calling all of our patients and letting them know. All patients are also being sent a letter.”
Source citations by paragraph
Paragraph numbering begins with “CULLMAN, Ala.” and includes each standalone quotation. The headline, sub-headline and byline are not counted.
McCormick documents refer to McCormick v. Cullman Regional Medical Center, case 5:24-cv-00820-HDM. Noffsinger documents refer to Noffsinger v. Cullman Regional Medical Center, case 5:24-cv-00900-HDM. Page numbers are the filed document pages unless a deposition transcript page is also specified.
Paragraph 1: “Summary Talking Points for James,” Noffsinger Document 25-26, p. 2; “Declaration of Lisa Courtney,” Noffsinger Document 28, pp. 21-22; “Declaration of Glenda Pelfrey,” McCormick Document 25-22, pp. 1-2.
Paragraph 2: “Declaration of Glenda Pelfrey,” McCormick Document 25-22, p. 2.
Paragraph 3: “Complaint,” McCormick Document 1, pp. 1, 3-4; “Answer,” McCormick Document 5, pp. 3, 5.
Paragraph 4: “Memorandum Opinion and Order,” McCormick Document 47, p. 18; “Final Judgment,” McCormick Document 48, p. 1.
Paragraph 5: “Memorandum Opinion and Order,” McCormick Document 47, pp. 10-17.
Paragraph 6: “Memorandum Opinion and Order,” McCormick Document 47, p. 17.
Paragraph 7: “Declaration of Schinley Land,” McCormick Document 25-1, pp. 1, 11-12.
Paragraph 8: “Declaration of Schinley Land,” McCormick Document 25-1, p. 12.
Paragraph 9: “Declaration of Schinley Land,” McCormick Document 25-1, p. 12.
Paragraph 10: “Declaration of Glenda Pelfrey,” McCormick Document 25-22, p. 2.
Paragraph 11: “Declaration of Glenda Pelfrey,” McCormick Document 25-22, p. 2.
Paragraph 12: “Deposition of Amanda L. McCormick,” McCormick Document 25-13, transcript p. 217, filed p. 56.
Paragraph 13: “Deposition of Amanda L. McCormick,” McCormick Document 25-13, transcript p. 217, filed p. 56.
Paragraph 14: “Deposition of Amanda L. McCormick,” McCormick Document 25-13, transcript p. 218, filed p. 56.
Paragraph 15: “Declaration of Schinley Land,” McCormick Document 25-1, p. 10.
Paragraph 16: “Declaration of Schinley Land,” McCormick Document 25-1, p. 10.
Paragraph 17: Katie Walker’s “Authorizations” email, McCormick Document 25-6, pp. 1-2.
Paragraph 18: Katie Walker’s “Authorizations” email, McCormick Document 25-6, p. 1.
Paragraph 19: Schinley Land’s “RE: Authorizations” email, McCormick Document 25-6, p. 1.
Paragraph 20: Lauren Dixon’s “Exit Interview,” McCormick Document 32-1, p. 27; Dixon’s resignation letter, Document 32-1, p. 26, identifies her cardiology nursing position.
Paragraph 21: Lauren Dixon’s “Exit Interview,” McCormick Document 32-1, p. 27.
Paragraph 22: Lauren Dixon’s “Exit Interview,” McCormick Document 32-1, p. 27.
Paragraph 23: Lauren Dixon’s April 10, 2023, resignation letter, McCormick Document 32-1, p. 26.
Paragraph 24: June 16, 2022 “RE: Dr. Noffsinger” email exchanges, Noffsinger Document 25-54, pp. 47-48.
Paragraph 25: Susan Borden’s June 16, 2022 “RE: Dr. Noffsinger” email, Noffsinger Document 25-54, p. 48.
Paragraph 26: Schinley Land’s June 16, 2022 “RE: Dr. Noffsinger Lab question” email, Noffsinger Document 25-54, p. 50.
Paragraph 27: Lisa Courtney’s June 16, 2022 “Re: Dr. Noffsinger Lab question” email, Noffsinger Document 25-54, p. 50.
Paragraph 28: Lisa Courtney’s June 16, 2022 “RE: Dr. Noffsinger” email, Noffsinger Document 25-54, p. 47.
Read part 1 at www.cullmantribune.com/2026/10/06/part-1-of-3-aging-out-federal-lawsuit-filed-against-crmc-by-former-physician-could-be-coming-to-a-close.
