New Medical Malpractice Opinion: Court Holds That Case Was Not Subject to Dismissal Due to an Omitted Affidavit at Filing

The Tennessee Court of appeals just issued its opinion in Chambers ex rel. Chambers v. Bradley Cnty., No. E2013-01064-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2014).   

In this medical malpractice[] case, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice on the grounds that plaintiff failed to file, with his complaint, the affidavit of the person who mailed pre-suit notice to the defendants. The trial court, noting that plaintiff complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 (Supp. 2013) in every respect except for filing the affidavit, and that he filed the affidavit shortly after the complaint, denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff had substantially complied with the statute. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Here's a link to the opinion, to wit:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/chamberscjopn.pdf

NOTE: Medical malpractice actions are now known as "health care liability actions" for cases that accrued on or after April 23, 2012.  This case, however, accrued before that date, which is why it is referred to by the old name as explained by footnote 1 of the opinion.

New Medical Malpractice Opinion: Court of Appeals Holds That Case Refiled under the Saving Statute Was Not Subject to Dismissal Because Plaintiffs Did Not Resend Presuit Notices Before Refiling the Case

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in Potter v. Perrigan, No. E2013-01442-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2014).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This is a medical malpractice[] action. Plaintiffs timely filed a complaint after properly sending pre-suit notices to Defendants. After voluntarily dismissing the initial complaint, Plaintiffs filed a second complaint pursuant to the saving statute with an attached certificate of good faith and a copy of the original pre-suit notices. Defendants moved to dismiss the second complaint for failure to comply with the notice requirements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a). The trial court agreed and dismissed the action. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse the decision of the trial court. 

Here is a link to the opinion, to wit:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/potteropn.pdf

NOTE: Medical malpractice actions are now known as "health care liability actions" for cases that accrued on or after April 23, 2012.  This case, however, accrued before that date, which is why it is referred to by the old name as explained by footnote 1 of the opinion.

Florida Supreme Court Declares Caps on Noneconomic Damages Unconstitutional

In an opinion released today (see link below), the Florida Supreme Court declared caps on noneconomic damages to be unconstitutional in wrongful death, medical malpractice cases on equal protection grounds under the Florida Constitution.  The case is Estate of McCall v. United States, No. SC11-1148 (Fla. Mar. 13, 2014).  It was a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc11-1148.pdf

New Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion on Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued its opinion today in Becker v. Ford Motor Co., No. M2013-02546-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Mar. 7, 2014).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:

This appeal involves a question of law concerning the interpretation and application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 (2009) certified by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Based on the undisputed facts, the District Court has asked this Court to determine whether, after a defendant asserts a comparative fault claim against a non-party tortfeasor who was known to the plaintiff when the original suit was filed, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 permits the plaintiff to amend its complaint to assert a claim directly against the tortfeasor named by the defendant, even though the statute of limitations on that claim has expired. We hold that the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 is not restricted to tortfeasors who were unknown to the plaintiff when its original complaint was filed.  Therefore, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 permits a plaintiff to file an amended complaint against the tortfeasor named by the defendant within ninety days after the filing of the answer or amended answer in which the defendant first asserts a comparative fault claim against the tortfeasor.

Here's a link to the opinion:

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

This opinion is no real surprise as far as Tennessee's law of comparative fault is concerned.  It is a more current version of another reported decision on this issue.  See generally Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co., 50 S.W.3d 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).  However, as the Tennessee Supreme Court pointed out, this certified question was taken to clarify Tennessee's substantive law of comparative fault for the federal courts (which have, respectfully, misinterpreted Tennessee's law of comparative fault for a long time now).