Medical Malpractice: Another Case on Certificates of Good Faith

The Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its opinion yesterday in Robles v. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., No. M2010-01771-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2010). Here's the summary from the opinion:

Defendants in medical malpractice action appeal the denial of their motion to set aside order entered on plaintiff’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Defendants contend that, because the certificate of good faith required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122 was not filed with the complaint, dismissal should have been with prejudice. Finding that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122 does not limit plaintiff’s right to voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice under the circumstances presented, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Here's a link to the opinion:

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/CURRENT/Estate%20of%20Miguel%20Robles%20v%20Vanderbilt%20University%20Medical%20Center%20Opn.pdf

Medical Malpractice: New Opinion on the Locality Rule

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Kennard v. Townsend, No. W2010-00461-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2011).

This is a medical malpractice case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee healthcare provider after its determination that Appellant patient’s medical expert did not meet the locality requirement, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-115(a)(1). Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

Here's a link to the opinion:

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCA/PDF/112/Vivian%20Kennard%20vs%20Arthur%20M%20Townsend%20IV%20MD%20OPN.pdf

New Opinion: Medical Negligence vs. Ordinary Negligence

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Mathes v. DRD Knoxville Medical Clinic, No. E2010-01809-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2011). Here's a summary of the opinion from its synopsis, to wit:

This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of separate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court determined that Appellants had failed to comply with the written notice and certificate of good faith requirements of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, and had failed to state a claim for vicarious liability based on theories of agency or joint venture. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand, concluding that Appellants’ claims of direct negligence do not sound in medical malpractice, but that Appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to vicarious liability based on agency or joint venture.

(Emphasis added.)

Here's a link to the opinion:

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCA/PDF/112/Alicia%20Mathes%20et%20al%20v%20DRD%20Knoxville%20Medical%20Clinic%20et%20al.pdf

New Case on Tennessee's Saving Statute

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Freeman v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. M2010-01833-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2011). Here's the summary from the opinion, to wit:

In this interlocutory appeal, we are asked to determine: (1) whether the Tennessee saving[] statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105(a), may be invoked twice within the one-year savings period to save otherwise untimely actions; and (2) whether the Appellee acted with the diligence and good faith necessary to invoke the protection of the saving[] statute. We conclude that Appellee’s suit was properly brought within the protection of the Tennessee saving[] statute. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Here's a link to the opinion:

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCA/PDF/112/Patsy%20Freeman%20Personal%20Representative%20and%20Administratrix%20of%20the%20Estate%20of%20John%20R%20Freeman%20Deceased%20v%20CSX%20Transportation%20Inc%20OPN.pdf

Medical Malpractice: The Term "Injury" Defined

How is an "injury" defined for purposes of medical malpractice? Here is the definition, to wit:

An injury is defined as any want of skillful care or diligence on a physician's part that sets back a patient's recovery, prolongs the patient's illness, increases the plaintiff's suffering, or, in short, makes the patient's condition worse than if due skill, care, and diligence had been used.

Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 171 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (defining injury for purposes of medical malpractice actions).