New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Ruling Disallowing Defense from Attempting to Improperly Shift Blame to a Nonparty at Trial and Its Order Regarding the Applicaiton of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-119 Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Supreme Court has released its highly anticipated opinion in Crotty v. Flora, No. M2021-01193-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2023). The opinion's syllabus reads:

In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant physician in a health care liability action asks us to review two pretrial orders. In the first, the trial court excludes evidence that a nonparty physician was the cause-in-fact of the claimant’s injuries because the defendant never amended his answer to include that allegation, as required under Rule 8.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure as applied in George v. Alexander, 931 S.W.2d 517 (Tenn. 1996). Because he does not allege that the nonparty physician was negligent, the defendant asks us to modify our holding in George and reverse the trial court’s order. We respectfully decline to do so. In the second pretrial order on appeal, the trial court considered Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-119, a provision that partially abrogates the common law collateral source rule in health care liability actions. It held that section 29-26-119 does not abrogate the collateral source rule under the facts of this case. We agree with the trial court that the collateral source rule remains in effect in this case. We affirm both of the trial court’s pretrial rulings.

Here is a link to the majority slip opinion: 

CROTTY - Majority Opinion.pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is a link to Justice Page's separate opinion, which concurred in part and dissented in part: 

CROTTY - Separate Opinion.pdf (tncourts.gov)

NOTE: This is a must-read opinion for any lawyer who handles health care liability actions (formerly called medical malpractice cases) governed by Tennessee substantive law. It reaffirms George, supra, and clarifies the application of the collateral source rule under the circumstances presented here. 

Trial Court's Grant of Voluntary Dismissal in Face of Pending Motion to Dismiss Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Westfield Group Insurance v. Embry, No. M2022-01301-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2023). The syllabus reads:

In this appeal, a defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it granted the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint while the defendant’s motion to dismiss and for attorneys’ fees was pending. We hold that a pending motion to dismiss does not preclude the plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing its case pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01. Likewise, the defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees did not create a “vested right” preventing the plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing its case. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: 

E-SIGNED-M2022-1301-COA-WESTFIELD GROUP INS..pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This opinion explains very well how the law on voluntary dismissals (nonsuits) work in Tennessee state-court civil actions. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Grant of Summary Judgment Upheld on Appeal Due to Plaintiffs' Failure to Proffer Sufficient Expert Testimony Regarding Informed Consent

The Tennesse Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Jarnagan v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, No. M2022-01012-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2023). The syllabus from the opinion reads:

The Plaintiff brought suit alleging the Defendants failed to obtain informed consent prior to conducting a medical procedure. The Defendants responded with a consent form signed by the Plaintiff detailing the potential side effects of the procedure of which the Plaintiff asserted he had not been informed, and they moved for summary judgment. The Plaintiff argued the consent form in the present case was inadequate to establish informed consent. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff appealed, challenging the validity of the signed consent form based on an alleged misrepresentation and his inability to read because of an eye condition, and arguing, therefore, that there is a material question of fact as to whether informed consent was obtained. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: UNSIGNED-M2022-01012-COA-JARNAGIN.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This opinion is absolutely correct. 

Trial Court's Order Regarding Disbursement of Proceeds Reversed on Appeal Because Proceeds Were Personalty That Belonged to the Decedent's Estate and Not Wrongful Death Proceeds

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Sanders v. Higgins, No. M2022-00892-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2023). The syllabus from the opinion reads:

This appeal involves the disbursement of settlement proceeds proffered by an insurance company in resolution of a claim against it. The plaintiff is the surviving spouse of the decedent, who was killed when she was struck by a vehicle while riding her bicycle. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the vehicle’s driver and the driver’s parents, all of whom were subsequently dismissed from the lawsuit following a settlement unrelated to this appeal. Within the same action, the plaintiff asserted a claim against his and the decedent’s insurer for negligent misrepresentation and negligent failure to procure insurance. The insurer had previously paid a pre-suit settlement to the plaintiff related to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the insurer had misrepresented additional coverage under an “umbrella policy,” leading the plaintiff and decedent to believe they were covered while failing to actually reinstate the umbrella policy when it had been temporarily cancelled months before the decedent’s death. The plaintiff and the insurer eventually reached a confidential settlement. To facilitate the release of claims by both the plaintiff and the decedent’s estate and upon the estate’s motion, the trial court entered an agreed order allowing the estate to intervene. The plaintiff then filed a motion to disburse the settlement proceeds to him, and the estate filed an intervening complaint and opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, asserting that the estate was entitled to one hundred percent of the settlement proceeds related to the umbrella policy claim. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the plaintiff’s motion to disburse the settlement proceeds to him upon finding that the cause of action against the insurer had not vested in the decedent prior to her death. The court subsequently denied the estate’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The estate has appealed. Determining that the cause of action against the insurer was based in tort, rather than wrongful death, and accrued to the decedent at the time of her fatal injuries, we conclude that the right to the resulting settlement proceeds belongs to the decedent’s estate. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of an order granting disbursal of the settlement funds to the estate.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: Majority Opinion - M2022-00892-COA-R3-CV.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This opinion does a good job of explaining the difference between wrongful death proceeds and tort proceeds as to how they are distributed, which is confusing to a lot of lawyers in my experience. 

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).

Trial Court's Exclusion of Evidence Regarding Medical Bills Due to Lack of Expert Proof of Their Being Necessary Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Holzmer v. Estate of James F. Walsh, Jr., No. M2022-00616-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2023). The syllabus reads:

This is an appeal from a jury verdict awarding damages to a plaintiff injured in a car accident. The plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of her medical bills. Because the plaintiff failed to present expert proof that her medical expenses were necessary, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the bills. The jury verdict is affirmed.

Here is a link to the opinion: 

Majority Opinion M2022-00616-COA-R3-CV.pdf (tncourts.gov)

NOTE: Look for this one to be appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Time will tell. 

Two New SCOTN Health Care Liability Action Opinions: Court of Appeals' Reversal of Trial Court's Dismissal of Vicarious Liability Claims Against the Principals Upheld on Appeal Due to Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act's Abrogation of the Common Law's Operation-of-law Exception

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued its opinions in Ultsch v. HTI Memorial Hosp. Corp., No. M2020-00341-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. July 20, 2023) and Gardner v. Saint Thomas Midtown Hosp., No. M2019-02237-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. July 20, 2023). The syllabus from the majority slip opinions in Ultsch reads:

“When there is a conflict between the common law and a statute, the provision of the statute must prevail.” Graves v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 148 S.W. 239, 242 (Tenn. 1912). That longstanding rule is the key to resolving this case, which pits a common-law rule governing vicarious liability claims against certain procedural provisions of Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act. The defendant in this case moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under the common-law rule. The trial court granted that motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed after concluding that application of the common-law rule would conflict with the Act. We agree that the Act necessarily implies an intent to abrogate the common-law rule in the circumstances of this case and affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Ultsch, No. M2020-00341-SC-R11-CV, slip. op. at 1. 

The syllabus from Gardner reads the same. No. M2019-02237-SC-R11-CV, slip op. at 1. 

Here is the majority opinion in Ultsch: 

691fd502-7aa9-486c-a1b9-97092d595eb0.pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justice Lee's opinion that concurs and dissents in part:  

ULTSCH-Separate Concur Opinion (J.Lee).pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justices Page and Bivins's dissent: 

ULTSCH-Separate Dissent Opinion (J.Bivins).pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is the majority opinion in Gardner: 

54eb201c-81d3-4f47-b239-aa6a1bdee20b.pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justice Lee's opinion that concurs and dissents in part: 

GARDNER - Separate CONCUR IN PART Opinion (J.Lee).pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justices Page and Bivins's dissent: 

GARDNER-Separate DISSENT Opinion (J.Bivins).pdf (tncourts.gov)

NOTE: These two decisions must be read by any lawyer who handles health care liability actions (f/k/a medical malpractice cases) governed by Tennessee substantive law because they will affect nearly every case of that sort, etc. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Case Refiled under the Saving Statute Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Richards v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, No. M2022-00597-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2023). The syllabus reads:

This appeal concerns a complaint for health care liability. Although Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c) provides for an extension of the applicable statutes of limitations in health care liability actions when pre-suit notice is given, it also specifies that “[i]n no event shall this section operate to shorten or otherwise extend the statutes of limitations or repose applicable to any action asserting a claim for health care liability, nor shall more than one (1) extension be applicable to any [health care] provider.” After a prior lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff provided new pre-suit notice and refiled in reliance on the Tennessee saving statute and an extension under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c). The trial court dismissed the refiled complaint with prejudice, however, holding, among other things, that Plaintiff could not utilize the statutory extension in his refiled action because he had already utilized a statutory extension in the first lawsuit. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. 

Here is a link to the majority opinion: Majority Opinion 2022-597-COA.pdf (tncourts.gov).

Here is a link to Judge Stafford's separate opinion: Separate Opinion 2022-597-COA.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This is a case I am involved in; while I was not involved in the trial court proceedings, the plaintiff's counsel was nice enough to let me help on appeal. Because of this, I will not comment further except to note that we will more than likely seek review by SCOTN on this issue.