Trial Court's Grant of the Defense's Motion for Summary Judgment Upheld on Appeal Because of the Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with Discovery Deadlines, Etc.; Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal Awarded

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee has issued its opinion in Metcalf v. Woodard, No. W2024-01321-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2025). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This appeal arises from a personal injury action following a motor vehicle collision in Shelby County, Tennessee. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining negligence claim after concluding that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence as to breach of duty and causation. We affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/2rz632kk>.

NOTE: This opinion serves as a cautionary tale of what not to do in a trial court and on appeal (because summary judgment was granted in the trial court and in addition to losing on appeal, sanctions for a frivolous appeal were awarded). 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: The Supreme Court of Tennessee Reverses the Court of Appeals of Tennessee and Holds That Grandmother Can Be a "Claimant" (as "Next Friend") for Her Grandchildren for Purposes of Authorizing Presuit Notices to Be Served under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act

The Tennessee Supreme Court has released its opinion in Denson v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge, No. E2023-00027-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Oct. 13, 2025). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This case clarifies who may be “the claimant authorizing the notice” under the health care liability pre-suit notice statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(B). Ashley Denson died after being admitted to the hospital. Her mother Bobbie Jo Denson took in Ashley’s two minor children and obtained legal custody of them. Bobbie Jo sent pre-suit notice to defendant health care providers identifying herself as the “claimant authorizing the notice” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(B). She subsequently filed suit on her own behalf and on behalf of the minor children, ultimately pursuing the claim solely on behalf of the minor children. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing Bobbie Jo did not comply with pre-suit notice requirements because she did not identify the children as the claimants. The trial court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss but granted their motion for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Bobbie Jo did not comply with pre-suit notice requirements because the children were the claimants but not identified as such. We now reverse. Bobbie Jo Denson is “the claimant authorizing the notice” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26 121(a)(2)(B), as minor children cannot authorize pre-suit notice and file suit on their own behalf. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court.  

Here is a link to that opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/29c64mya>.

NOTE: This is a correct decision on so many levels, and I applaud our state's High Court for reaching the correct decision in this case. 

New Laws Effective in Tennessee as of July 1, 2025

Here is an abstract of the new laws that go into effect in Tennessee today, July 1, 2025, to wit: <https://tinyurl.com/5chndhen>.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Summary Judgment for the Defense Affirmed Due to the Plaintiff's Expert Being Disqualified under the Locality Rule

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Bowen v. Nelson, No. W2024-00749-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2025). The syllabus reads:

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of her proffered expert for failure to comply with the locality rule. Plaintiff also appeals the grant of summary of judgment based on the exclusion of that expert. Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony, we affirm that ruling. Additionally, we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment as the excluded testimony was the only evidence offered regarding the applicable standard of care.  

Here is a link to the slip opinion: BowenGladysClaireOPN.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion offers a good discussion of the locality rule that applies to expert witnesses in a health care liability action as codified in Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-115(a)(1). 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Supreme Court of Tennessee Holds That Saving Statute Is Not Extended by 120 days in a Refiled Health Care Liability Action

This Supreme Court of Tennessee has released its opinion in Richards v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, No. M2022-00597-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Jan. 22, 2025). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this health care liability action, Clayton D. Richards asks us to consider whether the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint. Previously, Mr. Richards sued Vanderbilt University Medical Center alleging negligence. That lawsuit ended in a voluntary nonsuit. Mr. Richards refiled his complaint, which became the current action, over a year later. The trial court dismissed his complaint, holding that he had not complied with the terms of the saving statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105. On appeal, Mr. Richards argues that Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c) offers him a 120-day extension of the one-year saving statute, making his lawsuit timely. We disagree and conclude that section 29-26-121(c) does not extend the saving statute. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order granting Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s motion to dismiss.  

Here is a link to the opinion: https://tinyurl.com/ywy8y8ux.

NOTE: For myriad reasons, this case is difficult to reconcile with Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2015) <https://tinyurl.com/vamx2c4t>. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Action Upheld on Appeal Because a Certificate of Good Faith Was Not Filed with the Amended Complaint

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Allen v. Dehner, No. M2023-01750-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2025). The syllabus from the majority opinion reads:

A husband and wife commenced this health care liability action by filing a complaint against a medical doctor and his practice. Along with their complaint, the couple filed a “Certificate of Good Faith” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122(a), which requires certification that an expert has reviewed the available medical records “for the incident or incidents at issue” and that the expert believed there was “a good faith basis to maintain the action consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115.” The original complaint alleged that the defendants caused severe permanent and physical injuries when they failed to properly diagnose and treat the husband’s cancer. After the husband died, the wife filed an amended complaint that alleged that the defendants’ negligence also caused the husband’s death. But the wife did not file a new certificate of good faith. For this reason, the defendants sought dismissal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122(c). The trial court granted the motion, and this appeal followed. The issue is whether § 29-26-122(a) requires plaintiffs to file a new certificate of good faith with an amended complaint that alleges a new injury based on already-alleged negligent acts by existing defendants. In Sirbaugh v. Vanderbilt University, 469 S.W.3d 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) we held that a new certificate is required when adding new defendants to existing claims. And in Estate of Vickers v. Diversicare Leasing Corp., No. M2021-00894-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 2111850 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022), we held that a new certificate is required when adding new allegations of negligence against existing defendants. Accordingly, we conclude that a new certificate is required when adding an injury based on existing claims against existing defendants. For this and other reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

The majority slip opinion is at this link: https://tinyurl.com/yc8dmcjr.

The partial concurring and dissenting opinion is at this link: https://tinyurl.com/yc67zdmm.

NOTE: Look for the plaintiff in this action to seek review by the Supreme Court of Tennessee via Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Trial Court's Grant of the Defense's Motion for Summary Judgment Upheld on Appeal Because of the Plaintiff's Untimely Response Thereto

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Brecker v. Story, No. M2023-01640-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27. 2025).  The syllabus reads:

The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against his former attorney and her law firm, alleging legal malpractice and related claims. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by the affidavit of the defendant-attorney and various other documents. Just days before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff filed an untimely response to the motion for summary judgment along with voluminous exhibits. The defendants asked the trial court to disregard the late-filed exhibits and grant them summary judgment. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s response was untimely and deemed it stricken. In the absence of a response, the trial court also took the defendants’ statements of undisputed material facts as true. It then examined each of the causes of action asserted by the plaintiff and concluded that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: Majority Opinion - M2023-01640-COA-R3-CV.pdf.

NOTE: This is a must-read decision for any lawyer who handles cases that are governed by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Grant of Summary Judgment to the Defense Upheld on Appeal Due to the Statute of Repose Barring the Claims and the Exception to the Statute of Repose, Fraudulent Concealment, Did Not to Apply

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in Estate of Rowe v. Wellmont Health System, No. E2024-00431-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2024). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads: 

Paul David Rowe was not informed of a radiology report, which revealed two masses in his kidneys indicative of renal cancer, for five years. Mr. Rowe passed away after suit was filed, but his wife, Sharon K. Rowe, both individually and as the administrator ad litem of his estate, (“Plaintiffs”) maintained a health care liability action against the allegedly negligent parties, Wellmont Health System d/b/a Wellmont Bristol Regional Medical Center (“Wellmont”), Carl W. Harris, Jr., D.O. (“Dr. Harris”), and Northeast Tennessee Emergency Physicians [] (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed two separate motions for summary judgment, arguing that the three-year statute of repose barred Plaintiffs’ action. Plaintiffs raised the defense of fraudulent concealment. The Trial Court granted the motions for summary judgment finding that Defendants had no actual knowledge until 2015 that Mr. Rowe had or might have had cancer in 2010, and therefore, had nothing to fraudulently conceal. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.

Here is a link to that opinion: Estate of Paul Rowe Et Al. v. Wellmont Health System Et Al. Opinion.pdf.

NOTE: This recent opinion on fraudulent concealment in the health-care-liability-action (f/k/a medical malpractice action) context is a must read for any lawyer who handles these types of cases where Tennessee substantive law applies.