New Health Care Liability Action: Upon Remand from SCOTN to Resolve Previously Pretermitted Issues, the Trial Court's Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant Physician Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals, on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court, has issued its opinion in Ingram v. Gallagher, No. E2020-01222-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2023). The opinion's syllabus reads:

This is a health care liability case. George Gary Ingram ("Ingram") filed a health care liability action in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County ("the Trial Court") against, among others, Dr. Michael Gallagher ("Dr. Gallagher") and Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority d/b/a Erlanger Health System ("Erlanger") ("Defendants," collectively). Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint naming Dr. Gallagher as the sole defendant. He thus removed the other defendants, including Erlanger, from the lawsuit. Dr. Gallagher then filed an answer asserting, as a defense, that his governmental employer, Erlanger, was not made a party to the action. Consequently, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the Trial Court's order of dismissal as to Erlanger, which was denied. Plaintiff's claims were dismissed. In Ingram v. Gallagher, No. E2020-01222-COA-R3-CV, 2021 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283, 2021 WL 3028161 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2021) ("Ingram I"), we reversed the Trial Court, holding that the Trial Court erred in denying Plaintiff's motion to revise the order of dismissal. We pretermitted all other issues. The Tennessee Supreme Court then reversed this Court, holding that Erlanger was removed from the lawsuit when Plaintiff filed his amended complaint and that the order of dismissal had no legal effect so there was no order to amend. Our Supreme Court remanded for us to address the remaining issues. We hold, inter alia, that the savings statute is inapplicable as the Governmental Tort Liability Act ("the GTLA") is implicated; that the Trial Court did not err in dismissing Erlanger for lack of pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith; and that the Trial Court did not err in granting summary judgment to Dr. Gallagher as his governmental employer, Erlanger, was not made a party. We affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion: TN Courts (link will take you to page where opinion can be viewed).

NOTE: This is not a surprising result because the defendant-physician's employer was not made a party-defendant as well, which is required under the GTLA. 

Further, this post is related to my May 18, 2023-post, to wit: Tony Duncan Law: New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: SCOTN Determines Amended Complaint Filed as of Matter of Right Under Rule 15 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Is Determinative and Remands Case Back to COATN to Address Issues Previously Deemed Pretermitted (theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com).

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Defendant (Who Was a Healthcare Provider) Cannot Be Compelled to Provide Expert Opinion Testimony About Another Defendant Provider's Standard of Care or Deviation from Said Standard

The Tennessee Supreme Court has released its opinion in Borngne v. Chattanooga Hamilton County Hospital Authority, No. No. E2020-00158-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 23, 2023). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This appeal primarily concerns the compulsion of a physician’s deposition testimony in a health care liability action. In 2014, a child was born via cesarean section and suffered permanent brain damage and severely debilitating injuries. By and through her next friend and mother Brittany Borngne (“Plaintiff”), the child sued the doctor who delivered her and the certified nurse midwife who was initially in charge of the birthing process, among other defendants. The trial court dismissed all claims of direct negligence against the defendant physician but allowed the [P]laintiff to proceed against the physician on a vicarious liability theory as the midwife’s supervising physician. However, during his deposition prior to trial, the physician refused to opine on the midwife’s performance outside of his presence. The trial court declined to require the physician to do so, and after a trial, the jury found in favor of the defendants. The Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, partially reversed the judgment. The intermediate court concluded, among other things, that the trial court committed reversible error in declining to order the physician to answer the questions at issue in his deposition and remanded for a new trial. After review, we hold that a defendant healthcare provider cannot be compelled to provide expert opinion testimony about another defendant provider’s standard of care or deviation from that standard. We therefore conclude that the trial court here properly declined to compel the defendant physician’s testimony. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Here is a link to the majority opinion: 

Majority Opinion E2020-00158-SC-R11-CV-Page.pdf (tncourts.gov).

Justice Campbell wrote a concurring opinion as to the judgment but not reasoning that was joined by Justice Kirby:

Separate Opinion E2020-00158-SC-R11-CV-Campbell.pdf (tncourts.gov).

Justice Lee wrote a concurring opinion that takes issue with Justice Campbell's concurring in judgment opinion that was joined by Justice Kirby:

Separate Opinion E2020-00158-SC-R11-CV-Lee.pdf (tncourts.gov).

Here is Justice Kirby's opinion that also concurs with the results but not the reasoning of the majority opinion:

Separate Opinion E2020-00158-SC-R11-CV-Kirby.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This decision relates to my July 1, 2021-post, to wit: 

Tony Duncan Law: New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: New Trial Ordered Due to Trial Court Errors as to Expert Witness Testimony and Premajority Medical Expenses (theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com).

This decision is a rarity in Tennessee SCOTN jurisprudence due to the number of opinions released by the justices. All are must-read opinions for any lawyer who handles Tennessee health care liability actions. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: SCOTN Determines Amended Complaint Filed as of Matter of Right Under Rule 15 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Is Determinative and Remands Case Back to COATN to Address Issues Previously Deemed Pretermitted

The Tennessee Supreme Court has issued its decision in Ingram v. Gallagher, No. E2020-01222-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 17, 2023). The slip opinion's syllabus reads:

The issue before us is whether the voluntary dismissal of a defendant in a multi-defendant case that is governed by the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) may be set aside and the claim against the dismissed defendant reinstated on the motion of a plaintiff pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. The plaintiff in this case initiated a healthcare liability action against a physician, a hospital, and two other defendants. Before any responsive pleading was filed by any defendant, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming only the physician as a defendant. The plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal that dismissed all of the defendants except the physician, and the trial court entered an order of voluntary dismissal the following day. In his answer to the amended complaint, the physician argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the GTLA because the hospital, which was his employer and a governmental entity, was not a defendant. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend in which he sought to set aside the trial court’s order voluntarily dismissing the hospital from the action. The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend. The trial court later dismissed the hospital from the action with prejudice and granted a motion for summary judgment filed by the physician. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the order of voluntary dismissal. Upon our review of this case, we do not reach the question of whether the voluntary dismissal order could be altered or amended pursuant to Rule 54.02. Because the plaintiff removed the hospital from the lawsuit when he filed his amended complaint, the plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal and the trial court’s order of voluntary dismissal were of no legal effect. Accordingly, there was no valid order of voluntary dismissal to alter or amend. As a result, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues it deemed pretermitted as moot.

Here is a link to the opinion:

NOTE: This post is related to my June 20, 2021-post, to wit: Tony Duncan Law: New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Denial of Motion to Revise Interlocutory Order Reversed on Appeal (theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com). SCOTN got this one correct in my humble opinion. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Dismissal of Complaint Upheld on Appeal Because Proper Action Was Not Taken Before Statute of Limitations Expired

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Jackson v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, No. M2022-00476-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2022). The syllabus form the slip opinion reads: 

Patient, by next of kin, sued hospital alleging negligence during his treatment. Trial court granted hospital’s motion to dismiss based on patient’s failure to file the complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Patient appealed the dismissal. Because the trial court correctly determined that the statute of limitations commenced running when the patient was discharged, we affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/thomas_w._jackson_deceased_by_next_of_kin_latisha_jackson_v._vanderbilt_university_medical_center_-_m2022-00476-coa-r3-cv.pdf.

NOTE: This case reminds us of what needs to be done to ensure that a health care liability action is timely filed. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Summary Judgment for Defense Upheld on Appeal Because Plaintiff's Expert Was Not Qualified to Render an Opinion under the Locality Rule

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Jackson v. Thibault, No. E2021-00988-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2022). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision to exclude her proffered expert for failing to comply with the locality rule expressed in Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011). Plaintiff also appeals the trial court’s decision to grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm the decision of the trial court to exclude the expert. Additionally, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants. 

Here is the link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/e2021-00988_jackson_v._thibault.pdf.

NOTE: This case offers a good discussion of what it takes for an expert to be able to render an opinion in a health care liability action and the current state of summary judgment practice. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claim Due to Defective Presuit Medical Records Authorization Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Reese v. Waters of Clinton, LLC, No. E2020-01466-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This healthcare liability action was brought against a skilled nursing facility. The plaintiff sent pre-suit notice to multiple potential defendants prior to initiating the action. The plaintiff, however, failed to include as part of the pre-suit notice a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization as one of the six core elements was missing from the authorization. Following a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), the Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the defendant due to noncompliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121 and as being untimely. The Trial Court denied the plaintiff’s request to compel discovery in this matter concerning whether the plaintiff had substantially complied with the pre-suit notice requirement. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the Trial Court erred by not treating the defendant’s motion as a motion for summary judgment and by preventing the plaintiff from conducting discovery regarding the plaintiff’s compliance with Section 29-26-121, as well as the resulting prejudice to the defendant. Discerning no error, we affirm the Trial Court’s judgment in all respects.

Here is a link to that opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/e2020-1466_reese_v._clinton.pdf.

NOTE: This case offers a good discussion on what needs to be done to comply with HIPAA as it relates to authorizations to share and receive a patient's protected health information (PHI); those authorizations are supposed to be included as part of any presuit notice package sent to a potential defendant under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121.  In this case, a blank was left in each authorization so that the provider receiving presuit notice could ostensibly fill it in.  Reese, E2020-01466-COA-R3-CV, slip op. at 2.  That practice, however, has been held to not comply with HIPAA.  Id. at 13–14.  Since the authorizations did not comply with HIPAA, the plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law.  See T.C.A. § 29-26-121 (LexisNexis 2021).  

This case also offers a good discussion of motions to dismiss versus motions for summary judgment to the extent that both challenge a plaintiff's noncompliance the presuit notice requirements contained in Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121.  See id., passim.

Also, this opinion touches upon an attorney-in-fact (agent) acting on behalf of a patient in a Tennessee health care liability action (formerly known as a "medical malpractice case").  Id. at 2.  To the extent that the agent signs an authorization required for the release and sharing of a patient's PHI under -121 via a power of attorney form (POA), that form must be for health care purposes and not a general POA.  See June M. Sullivan & Shannon B. Hartsfield, HIPAA: A Practical Guide to the Privacy and Security of Health Data 39–40 (2d ed. 2020) ("For purposes of HIPAA, an individual's personal representative is a person with authority under state law to make health care decisions for the individual."  (Footnote omitted.)).  

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Denial of Motion to Revise Interlocutory Order Reversed on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Ingram v. Gallagher, No. E2020-01222-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This appeal arises from a healthcare liability action wherein the plaintiff initially sued the doctor, the hospital, and two other defendants. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice against all defendants except for the doctor. The doctor subsequently filed an answer to the complaint, stating that the action should be dismissed under the Governmental Tort Liability Act because the hospital, a governmental hospital entity and the doctor’s employer, was not a party to the action. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend,” seeking to set aside the Trial Court’s order of dismissal in order to withdraw his voluntary dismissal of the hospital as a party. The Trial Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend, determining that the voluntary dismissal order was a final order and that the plaintiff knew about the doctor’s employment with the hospital prior to the voluntary dismissal. We determine that the Trial Court erred by treating the plaintiff’s motion as a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60 motion, instead of a motion to revise pursuant to Rule 54.02, and further hold that the Trial Court erred by denying the plaintiff’s motion to revise the non-final order of voluntary dismissal.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/ingram_vs._gallagher_coa_opinion.pdf.

NOTE: Procedurally, this case is a mess.  There was a lot going on in the trial court below.  This opinion, however, is a great one that addresses motions to revise interlocutory orders under Rule 54 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.  A lot of lawyers file motions to "alter or amend" interlocutory (nonfinal) orders, which is procedurally improper; this opinion sheds light on the issue and hopefully will clear up any confusion on this issue.  

Also, practically speaking, the plaintiff could have added the hospital as a party-defendant under Tennessee's comparative fault joinder statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119, after the doctor's answer was filed indicating that he was an employee of the hospital at the time in question.  That would have remedied the problem of the employer not being a party to the lawsuit under Tennessee's Governmental Tort Liability Action (and would have been an easy fix, too).  See Bidwell ex rel. Bidwell v. Strait, 618 S.W.3d 309, 323–30 (Tenn. 2021), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12106812184700824746&q=618+S.W.3d+309&hl=en&as_sdt=4,43.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: New Trial Ordered Due to Trial Court Errors as to Expert Witness Testimony and Premajority Medical Expenses

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Borngne ex rel. Hyter v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, No. E2020-00158-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads: 

This health care liability action arises from injuries suffered by a minor, Miyona Hyter, during her birth. Miyona Hyter, a minor by and through her next friend and mother, Brittany Borngne[,]  . . . sued, among others, Dr. Michael Seeber who delivered the child via cesarean section and certified nurse midwife Jennifer Mercer who assisted with the birthing process. Plaintiff alleged that Nurse Mercer was negligent by failing to recognize concerning signs on the fetal monitoring strip and by failing to call Dr. Seeber for assistance sooner than she did. The Circuit Court for Hamilton County . . . , by agreed order, granted Dr. Seeber partial summary judgment on all claims of direct negligence against him; he remained in the case as a defendant only upon Plaintiff’s theory that he was vicariously liable for Nurse Mercer’s actions as her supervising physician. During his deposition, Dr. Seeber declined to answer questions that he argued required him to render an expert opinion regarding Nurse Mercer’s care during times that Dr. Seeber was not present and had no involvement in Plaintiff’s care. The Trial Court declined to require Dr. Seeber to answer questions that “call[] for an opinion by Dr. Seeber that asks him to comment on the actions of other healthcare providers and does not involve his own actions, as required by Lewis v. Brooks,” 66 S.W.3d 883, 887-88 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). After Nurse Mercer’s deposition, she submitted an errata sheet that substantively altered her answers to some of the questions. Plaintiff moved to suppress the errata sheet, arguing that Tenn. R. Civ. P. 30.05 does not allow a witness to make substantive changes to her deposition testimony. The Trial Court denied the motion but allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to reopen Nurse Mercer’s deposition and to fully cross-examine her at trial about the changes. The case proceeded to trial before a jury, which returned a verdict in Defendants’ favor. We hold that the Trial Court erred by refusing to order Dr. Seeber to answer the questions at issue in his deposition. Deeming this case distinguishable from Lewis v. Brooks, we reverse the Trial Court in its declining to compel Dr. Seeber to testify concerning the conduct of his supervisee, Nurse Mercer, and remand for a new trial. We also reverse the Trial Court in its decision to exclude proof of Miyona Hyter’s pre-majority medical expenses. We affirm the Trial Court as to the remaining issues.

Here is a link to the majority opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/e2020-158_borngne_v._chattanooga.pdf.

Here is Judge Davis's opinion that concurs in part and dissents in part:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/e2020-158_borngne_v._chattanooga_sep_opin.pdf.

NOTE: This decision offers a good discussion of deposition testimony and errata sheets under Rule 30.05 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, expert witness testimony (especially related to subordinate providers), and premajority medical expenses. 

Once can be certain that the Tennessee Supreme Court will be asked to review this case via an application for permission to appeal under Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.  More to come.  

UPDATE: SCOTN granted permission to appeal in this case on Oct. 16, 2021, to wit: https://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/sc_discretionary_appeals_list_2021oct18.pdf.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Defense Verdict in Second Trial (Which Was Bifurcated) Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals released its decision in Jernigan v. Paasche, No. No. M2020-00673-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this health care liability action, an initial jury trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant physicians. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court granted. Prior to the second jury trial, the trial court determined that the trial should be bifurcated such that the first phase would address only the applicable standard of care and whether the defendants deviated therefrom, and the second phase would address causation. Following completion of the standard of care phase, the jury again ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff filed a second motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The plaintiff timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/jernigan.david_.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion deals with the bifurcation of issues for trial, the admission of expert witness testimony, and waiver of issues.  It is a must-read decision for any lawyer who handled health care liability actions governed by Tennessee substantive law.  

Further, I expect the Tennessee Supreme Court will be asked (via an application for permission to appeal) to review this decision.  The bifurcation below might be what gets that application granted; we shall see.   

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Tennessee Supreme Court Holds That Cap on Noneconomic Damages Applies to Claims of Injured Spouse and Derivative Loss-of-consortium Claim in the Aggregate

The Tennessee Supreme Court released its decision today in Yebuah v. Center for Urological Treatment, PLC, No. M2018-01652-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. June 2, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is a healthcare liability action involving the application of the statutory cap on noneconomic damages to loss of consortium claims. The issue before the Court is whether the statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies separately to a spouse’s loss of consortium claim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102, thus allowing each plaintiff to receive an award of up to $750,000 in noneconomic damages. Here, the surgery patient filed suit for noneconomic damages resulting from the defendant physicians’ negligence, namely that a portion of a Gelport device was unintentionally left in her body after surgery. In the same suit, the patient’s spouse claimed damages for loss of consortium. The jury awarded the patient $4,000,000 in damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The jury also awarded her husband $500,000 in damages for loss of consortium. The trial court initially applied the statutory cap on noneconomic damages by entering a judgment in favor of both plaintiffs collectively for a total judgment of $750,000. However, the trial court subsequently granted the plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend and applied the statutory cap to each plaintiff separately, thereby entering a judgment of $750,000 for the patient and $500,000 for her husband. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold that the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102 allows both plaintiffs to recover only $750,000 in the aggregate for noneconomic damages. We therefore reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals and the trial court.

Here is a link to the majority opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/yebuahcynthia.opn_.pdf.

Justices Lee, joined by Justice Clark, dissented; here is that opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/yebuahcynthia.sep_.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: This decision is yet another result of the tort reform pushed by ALEC et al. that treats the citizens of Tennessee unfairly

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Denial of Summary Judgment for a Defendant Upheld on Appeal; Authorization for Medical Records Substantially Complied with HIPAA

The Tennessee Court of Appeals released its decision today in Savannah v. State, No. E2020-01232-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

Parents filed a healthcare liability and wrongful death complaint after the mother delivered a stillborn infant. We granted this interlocutory appeal to review whether the claims commission erred in denying summary judgment to the defendants. Finding no error in the Commission’s ruling, we affirm. 

Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/savannah_leigh_jackson_et_al._v._the_state_of_tennessee_et_al..pdf.

NOTE: This is a must-read decision for any lawyer who handles health care liability action (HCLA) cases governed by Tennessee substantive law.  It addresses whether an authorization required under Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121 complies with HIPAA, which has become all-too-common issues in HCLA cases.  

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Refiled Suit Upheld on Appeal Due to Failure to Provide Statutorily Required Presuit Notice of Second Suit

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Byington v. Reaves, No. E2020-01211-COA-R3-CV.  Here is the syllabus from the slip opinion:

This is a health care liability case. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss because Appellant failed to provide Appellees with the proper pre-suit notice under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(1). Discerning no error, we affirm.

Here is the link to the slip opinion:  

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/debra_sue_byington_v._jamie_reaves_d.o._et_al..pdf.

NOTE: Procedurally, this case is mess.  In a nutshell, the suit that is the subject of this appeal, which was plaintiff's second suit against the defendants, was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to send to the defendants the statutorily required presuit notice letters.  Byington, slip op. at 4–5.  

Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Grant of Relief Under Rule 60.02, Tenn. R. Civ. P., Reversed on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its decision in Mack v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, No. W2020-00809-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2021).  The syllabus form the slip opinion reads:

This appeal arises from a health care liability action. Darryl G. Rush-Mack . . . died while receiving care at Baptist Memorial Hospital . . . .  Alvin Mack . . . , Kevin Mack, and Darwisha Mack Williams . . . sued the Hospital and Dr. Aaron Kuperman . . . in the Circuit Court for Shelby County . . . .  Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. Thirty days from entry of the order passed without Plaintiffs filing a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to set aside pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 asserting that the order was not stamped to be mailed until six days after it was filed and it went to a PO Box Plaintiffs’ counsel does not use for business. The Trial Court granted the motion and entered a new order of dismissal, from which Mr. Mack appeals. We find that Mr. Mack failed to meet the clear and convincing evidentiary burden necessary for Rule 60.02 relief; indeed, the Trial Court relied only upon statements of counsel rather than evidence. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s grant of Plaintiffs’ Rule 60.02 motion. 

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/mackalvinopn.pdf.

NOTE: This case is a reminder of the high burden to meet under the clear-and-convincing standard of evidentiary proof.  

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Case as Being Time-barred Due to a Failure to Comply with Presuit Notice Requirements Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its decision in Shaw v. Gross, No. W2019-01448-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2021).  The syllabus form the slip opinion reads:

Appellant appeals the dismissal of her health care liability complaint on the basis of the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. Because Appellant did not substantially comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), she was not entitled to an extension on the statute of limitations. The trial court’s decision that her complaint should be dismissed is affirmed. 

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

 https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/shawhelen2opn.pdf.

NOTE: This case is related to my Feb. 9, 2018-blog post.  Tony Duncan, New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court Reversed Due to Discovery Rule, Its Decision Vacated Because It Failed to Adhere to the Proper Summary Judgment Standard, Which Leads to a Remand by Court of Appeals, TONY DUNCAN L. BLOG (Feb. 9, 2018, 6:28 PM), http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2018/02/new-health-care-liability-action_9.html.

Two New Health Care Liability Action Opinions on Same Issue: Trial Court's Grant of Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss Reversed on Appeal Due to Statutory Changes as They Relate to Vicarious Liability

Today, the Tennessee Court of Appeals released its decisions in Gardner v. Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital, No. M2019-02237-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2021) and Ultsch v. HTI Memorial Hospital Corporation, No. M2020-00341-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2021).  Both cases hinge on the same issue and arise from the same trial court.  The common issue being whether a principal in a health care liability action may be held vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of its employees and agents if the statute of limitations was extended as to the principal but not the employees and agents via service of presuit notice letters under Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121.  

The syllabus from the slip opinion in Gardner reads:

A patient filed a health care liability claim against a hospital, asserting the hospital was vicariously liable for injuries she suffered as a result of the anesthesia providers’ conduct. The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing that the anesthesia providers were not employed by the hospital and the hospital was, therefore, not liable for the anesthetists’ actions as a matter of law because the statute of limitations had run on the plaintiff’s direct claims against the anesthesia providers by the time the plaintiff filed her complaint against the hospital. The trial court granted the hospital’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, relying on the common law set forth in Abshure v. Methodist HealthcareMemphis Hospitals, 325 S.W.3d 98 (Tenn. 2010). Acknowledging the conflict between provisions of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act and the common law, we hold that the statute prevails. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Here is a link to the Gardner slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/gardner.beverly.opn_.pdf.

The syllabus from the slip opinion in Ultsch reads:

This appeal concerns the interplay between the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act [] and the common law on vicarious liability with respect to pre-suit notice in a health care liability claim against the principal only. We have determined that the provisions of the HCLA take precedence over the common law and that the plaintiff’s claims in this case were timely filed. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the trial court.

Here is a link to the Ultsch slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/ultsch.dennis.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: Both of these opinions offer an excellent explanation of how a vicarious liability claim may be prosecuted under Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act (f/k/a the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act). SCOTN will be asked to review these two decisions via a Rule 11 application.  It may deny review, however, because these decision are very well reasoned and jibe with applicable Tennessee law in my humble opinion.  

UPDATE (Oct. 1, 2021): I was wrong.  SCOTN has granted permission to appeal in both cases on Sept. 24, 2021, to wit:

https://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/sc_discretionary_appeals_list_2021sept27.pdf.

 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Case Upheld on Appeal Due to Noncompliance with Statutory Presuit-notice Requirements

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its decision in Woods v. Arthur, No. W2019-01936-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This appeal concerns the dismissal of a health care liability action for failure to comply with a pre-suit notice content requirement in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-29-121(a)(2). The trial court determined that the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant doctors and hospital with medical authorization forms that would permit pre-suit investigation of his claims. The plaintiff contends the dismissal was unwarranted because the medical authorizations substantially complied with the statute and the defendants already had the relevant records. The defendants argue that the forms were invalid because they lacked several required elements, including a description of the purpose for which the records could be disclosed and used. We affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/woodsarthuropn_3.pdf.

NOTE: As I have noted in the past, an authorization may not be needed for the defendants to share medical records.  If that ends up being true, all these decision holding that a case should be dismissed due to some defect in an authorization are wrongly decided.  Tony Duncan, New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Action as Time-barred Overturned on Appeal, TONY DUNCAN L. BLOG, Note (Jul. 3, 2018, 3:58 PM), http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2018/07/new-health-care-liability-action.html.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Intentional Acts Are Not Covered by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act; Negligent Training and Supervision Claims Are Covered by the THCLA; and If Wrongful Acts Fall Within the Common-knowledge Exception to Expert Testimony No Certificate of Good Faith Is Required to Be Filed

The Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued it opinion in C.D. v. Keystone Continuum, LLC, No. E2016-02528-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2018).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads: 

The plaintiff, C.D., a minor, was a resident of Mountain Youth Academy, a trauma focused residential treatment facility,1 when he got into a physical altercation with an employee of the defendant Keystone Continuum, LLC doing business as Mountain Youth Academy. The employee, Jacob Spencer, is described by the defendant as a “mental health associate.” The plaintiffs describe him as a “third shift night guard.” The minor’s mother filed this action, proceeding both individually and on behalf of her son. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Spencer pulled the minor plaintiff to the ground and stomped on his foot, causing him injury. Defendant moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, arguing that the complaint in this case alleges health care liability claims. Defendant argued that because of plaintiffs’ (1) failure to provide pre-suit notice under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (the THCLA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26- 121 (Supp. 2017), and (2) their failure to file a certificate of good faith with the complaint, id. § 29-26-122, the lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice. The trial court held that plaintiffs’ claims sounded in health care liability. It dismissed the mother’s action with prejudice. The court also dismissed the minor’s action, but did so without prejudice.2 Defendant appeals, arguing that the minor’s action should have been dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs also present issues. They argue that the trial court erred in ruling that their claims are based upon health care liability. Additionally and alternatively, plaintiffs argue that their claims fall within the “common knowledge” exception to the general requirement of expert testimony in a health care liability action. We hold that plaintiffs’ claims for assault and battery are unrelated to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services. As a consequence of this, we hold that the plaintiffs’ assault and battery claims do not fall within the ambit of a “health care liability action” as defined by the statute. We further hold that plaintiffs’ direct claims against the defendant, for negligent supervision and/or training of its employees, are health care liability claims but ones involving matters that ordinary laypersons will be able to assess by their common knowledge. Hence, expert medical testimony is not required. The trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for assault and battery is vacated. We further hold that mother’s failure to provide the defendant with pre-suit notice mandates a dismissal of her claim for negligent supervision and/or training, but that dismissal should have been without prejudice rather than with prejudice. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment on this part of mother’s claim is modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. We affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the minor’s claim of negligent supervision and/or training and further affirm the trial court’s judgment that this dismissal is without prejudice.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: 

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/c.d._et_al._v._keystone_continuum_llc_dba_mountain_youth_academy.pdf