MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

W. WATKINS, District Judge

This cause is before the court on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed on October 16, 2006. (Doc. # 7.) Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the basis that it fails to "allege any act or omission that would render [Defendants] liable to the Plaintiff . . . or the detailed specification and factual description of each act and omission required by Ala. Code § 6-5-551." ( Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion on November 8, 2006 (Doc. # 10), and Defendants filed a reply on November 16, 2006 (Doc. # 11). For the following reasons, the court finds that the motion is due to be DENIED.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction, and the court finds adequate allegations in support of personal jurisdiction.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion, such as the one presently before this court, tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations. See Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); see also South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Montalvo, 84 F.3d 402, 406 (11th Cir. 1996) (A motion to dismiss must be denied "unless it is clear the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims in the complaint."); Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted) ("[W]e may not . . . [dismiss] unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims in the complaint that would entitle him or her to relief."). In applying this standard, the court will accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those allegations, and views those facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Hishon, 467 U.S. at 73.

DISCUSSION

Section 6-5-551 of the Alabama Code provides in relevant part:

In any action for injury, damages, or wrongful death . . . against a health care provider for breach of the standard of care, . . . [t]he plaintiff shall include in the complaint filed in the action a detailed specification and factual description of each act and omission alleged by plaintiff to render the health care provider liable to plaintiff and shall include when feasible and ascertainable the date, time, and place of the act or acts. . . . . Any complaint which fails to include such detailed specification and factual description of each act and omission shall be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Ala. Code § 6-5-551 (1975). The Alabama Supreme Court has clarified that

when a plaintiff files a complaint alleging that a health care provider breached the standard of care owed to the plaintiff, although every element of the cause of action need not be stated with particularity, the plaintiff must give the defendant health care provider fair notice of the allegedly negligent act and must identify the time and place it occurred and the resulting harm. If the complaint affords the defendant health care provider fair notice of these essential elements, the courts should strive to find that the complaint includes the necessary "detailed specification and factual description of each act and omission alleged by plaintiff to render the health care provider liable to plaintiff."

In this case, the Complaint alleges that Defendants were negligent in testing and reporting Plaintiff's urine specimen, kidney sample, and bladder wash as positive for cancerous or malignant cells; the Complaint provides the specific dates each test was performed and each specific laboratory test report identification number; and the Complaint alleges that due to the erroneous laboratory results, Plaintiff was caused to undergo invasive treatment, hospitalization, stress, pain and suffering. (Doc. # 1.) Accordingly, the court finds that these allegations satisfy the pleading requirements of Section 6-5-551 by giving Defendants fair notice of the allegedly negligent act, identifying the time and place it occurred, and the resulting harm. See Mikkelsen, 619 So. 2d at 1384. Thus, the motion to dismiss is due to be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is hereby DENIED.