Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Medical Malpractice: Court of Appeals Holds Plaintiffs' Appeal to Be Frivilous

The Eastern Section of the Tennessee Court of Appeals just held that the plaintiffs' appeal of a grant of summary judgment in the defendants' favor was frivolous. The case is Peters v. Lamb, E2008-00997-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2009).

The plaintiffs attempted to nonsuit the case without "filing" the notice of dismissal, which is required by Rule 41.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

There's some good old law from the nineteenth century in this opinion on what constitutes "filing" with the court, etc.

Here's the link to the opinion:

U.S. Healthcare System Fails to Protect Patients from Deadly Medical Errors

SCOTUS Denies Cert in TN Products Case

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari ("cert") in the Flax case. (This case was the subject a July 25, 2008 post on this blog.)

The jury had assessed substantial punitive damages against Chrysler, which the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld after a substantial reduction. The United States Supreme Court (at least no more than a few of the justices) apparently thought the decision did not need to be disturbed.

As a reminder, a little boy died because of a defective seat in a Chrylser minivan that failed, fell back on him, and killed him in a car accident. The link in the July 5, 2008 post referenced above has all of the necessary background information about the case.

Here's a link showing the denial of cert:

This is a very tragic case. However, at least the family was not denied some justice for their loss.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Tennessee Supreme Court Construes T.C.A. § 24-5-113(a)

The Tennessee Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Borner v. Autry, W2007-00731-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 26, 2009). The opinion construes Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-5-113(a), which is the statute that supplies a presumption of reasonableness and necessity of medical bills up to $4,000.

Here's a link to the opinion:

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Memorial Day

This is a somber holiday where we honor fallen American soldiers. They made the ultimate sacrifice, and for that, I am eternally grateful.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff' Fails to Survive Summary Judgment

The Middle Section of the Tennessee Court of Appeals just held that the plaintiff's expert's affidavit was insufficient to survive summary judgment. While this is an unfortunate result, it demonstrates the importance of complying with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-115, which is part of Tennessee's Medical Malpractice Act.

The style of the case is Mettes v. John, M2008-00901-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2009). Here's the link to the opinion:

Friday, May 22, 2009

Trial Court Abuses Its Discretion By Denying Motion to Amend

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing an amendment to a pleading in Daniels v. Wray, No. 2008-M01781-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 22, 2008). This opinion offers a good analysis of the law of amendments, especially as it applies to counterclaims.

Here's the link to the opinion:

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Friday, May 15, 2009

New Nursing Home Case

The Western Section of the Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued its opinion in Johnsey v. Northbrooke Manor, Inc., No. W2008-01118-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. C.t App. May 14, 2009). The opinion offers a good discussion on summary judgment standards and the difference between ordinary negligence in a healthcare setting and medical malpractice.

Here's the link to the opinion:

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Defendant Liability Insurance Information

Want to find out about or verify a defendant's liability insurance information? If so, MEA Services, Inc. can help. Here's MEA's Web site:

Hope this information helps.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Medical Malpractice: Expert Qualifications

The Western Section of the Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued a new opinion relating to the proper qualifications of a plaintiff's expert in a medical malpractice case. In this case, the plaintiff's expert did not practice in the same area as the defendants, which is not per se fatal to this type of claim. However, the opinion stresses the importance of an expert being familiar with the defendants' area of practice. The Court found that the plaintiff's expert was not familiar with the defendants' area of practice and granted summary judgment to the defendants.

The style of the case is McDaniel v. Rustom, No. W2008-00674-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2009).

Here's the link to the opinion: