New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Supreme Court of Tennessee Remands Case to the Trial Court with Instructions on How to Determine If a New Trial Is in Order Due to the Jury's Exposure to Extraneous Information During Deliberations

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has released its opinion in Collier ex rel. Chase C. v. Roussis, E2022-00636-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. July 31, 2026). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this appeal, we address the analytical framework for determining whether a jury’s exposure to extraneous information during deliberations in a civil case warrants a new trial. The parties in this healthcare liability action tried a complex, multi-day trial in which a central issue was whether it was appropriate for medical personnel not to use epinephrine to treat a pregnant patient’s anaphylactic reaction. The trial included extensive expert testimony about the risks, benefits, and usage of epinephrine during pregnancy. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendants. Thereafter, the Plaintiff learned that one night during jury deliberations, a juror at home examined the warning label on an EpiPen, an epinephrine auto-injector device, and shared that information with the jury during continued deliberations. The Plaintiff moved for a new trial based in part on a claim that the jury’s exposure to the EpiPen information “tainted the verdict.” The trial court denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiff had not established by clear and convincing evidence that exposure to the EpiPen information affected the jury. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard. We granted permission to appeal to decide the proper analysis when a party in a civil case implicating the constitutional right to a jury trial challenges a verdict because the jury allegedly was exposed to extraneous information. Considering our analogous precedent from criminal cases, we hold that our courts should use a burden-shifting framework to determine whether error occurred and a new trial is required. More specifically, the party challenging the verdict bears the initial burden of proving error—that the jury was exposed to material extraneous information—by a preponderance of the evidence. Upon a successful showing, a rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises. This circumstance places a burden on the party defending the verdict to rebut the presumption of prejudice by showing that exposure to the material extraneous information was harmless error. To make this showing, the party must demonstrate that there is no reasonable possibility that the information would have altered the verdict of a reasonable jury. Absent this showing, a new trial is warranted due to the violation of the constitutional right to a jury trial. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of this framework when deciding the motion for a new trial, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Here is a link to that opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/54vwk7jj>.

NOTE: This is a must-read opinion for every lawyer who tries cases to a jury in our state's nisi prius courts because of our High Court's instruction as to how the lower courts are to deal with the introduction of extraneous information before a jury. 

New Laws Effective in Tennessee on July 1, 2026

Here is an abstract of the new laws that go into effect in Tennessee on July 1, 2026, to wit:

EffectiveRpt

Supreme Court of Tennessee Disallows Prejudgment Interest in a Personal Injury Case Maintained Solely Against the Plaintiff's UM Insurance Carrier

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has released its opinion in Haddon v. Vanlier, No. M2023-01151-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 12, 2026). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this case, we determine whether prejudgment interest may be awarded in an action brought against a tortfeasor and defended by an uninsured motorist carrier under Tennessee’s Uninsured Motorist Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 56-7-1201–1206 (2016 & Supp. 2025). The trial court determined that Plaintiff Cinda Haddon could not recover prejudgment interest because her claim was for personal injury. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Ms. Haddon brought a contract action. Haddon v. Vanlier, No. M2023-01151-COA-R3-CV, 2024 WL 4590434, at *2–3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2024), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. March 17, 2025). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remanded this matter to the trial court for a determination of prejudgment interest. Id. at *5. Upon review, we find that this is a personal injury action. Because prejudgment interest is not available in a personal injury action, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court denying Ms. Haddon prejudgment interest. 

Here is a link to the opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/yv7sxs5f>.

NOTE: This opinion is correct in its analysis and conclusion under Tennessee’s Uninsured Motorist Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 56-7-1201–1206 (2016 & Supp. 2025). (FWIW: In Tennessee, UM and UIM are treated the same under our statute and both types of claims are referred to colloquially as "UM.")

Rare Case from the Supreme Court of the United States Regarding Medical Malpractice (and Civil Procedure): State-law Filing Requirement That Was in Conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Is Displaced by Federal Rules

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued its opinion in Berk v Choy, 607 U.S. _____ (2026). While I normally post the syllabus from Tennessee state-court opinions here, the one from this slip opinion is a little long; because of that, I offer this analysis instead: 

SCOTUS reviewed the case and held that Delaware’s affidavit of merit requirement does not apply in federal court. The Court reasoned that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, namely Rule 8, which governs what must be pleaded in a complaint that is filed to commence a civil action, sets the standard for pleadings and does not require supporting evidence such as an affidavit. Because Rule 8 is a valid procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act that regulates the manner and means by which claims are presented, it displaces the contrary Delaware law. SCOTUS reversed the Third Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but disagreeing with the analysis. Her Honor is of the opinion that Rules 3 and 12 are more relevant to the analysis. 

Here is a link to both opinions: <https://tinyurl.com/kbwer5rm>.

NOTE: This opinion is correct and settles a lot of uncertainty that had surrounded medical malpractice claims filed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Jury Verdict for the Defense Upheld on Appeal

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee recently released its second opinion in Davis v. Ellis, No. W2024-01467-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2025). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is the second appeal in this healthcare liability matter. The plaintiff first appealed from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant physician. This court reversed that judgment in 2020. Upon remand, a trial before a jury resulted in a defense verdict. The plaintiff again appeals. We affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/4mdvvxhz>.

NOTE: This opinion touches upon many aspects of a jury trial and an appeal therefrom. For example, it addresses the standard of review on an appeal from a jury verdict; a trial judge's function as the thirteenth juror; errata sheets; evidentiary issues; expert witness disclosures under Rule 26 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure; jury instructions; and awards of discretionary costs. This is a must-read opinion for any Tennessee trial lawyer—especially one who handles health care liability actions (f/k/a medical malpractice cases).

This appeal is the second one in this case. The first one is addressed in a prior blog post that can be viewed at this link, to wit: <https://tinyurl.com/y94mzd8w>. 

Trial Court's Evidentiary Rulings, Which Were Discretionary, Upheld on Appeal; Sanctions for a Frivolous Appeal Against the Defense Also Awarded

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee has released its opinion in Pajazetovic v. Baker, No. M2024-00372-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2025). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this automobile collision case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant challenges several rulings related to the admission and testimony of the plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert. Because the defendant failed to file a motion for new trial raising these challenges, we conclude that they are waived, and so we affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. We award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122.

Here is a link to that opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/yx588k9c>.

NOTE: This is the correct result (as well as a cautionary tale). 

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).