Search This Blog

Thursday, June 09, 2016

New Opinion on the Collateral Source Rule

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in Dedmon v. Steelman, No. W2015-01462-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 2, 2016).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:
This interlocutory appeal requires review of a ruling on a motion in limine in a personal injury case. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs submitted expert testimony from a treating physician to establish the reasonableness of their claimed medical expenses. The defendants filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of what they deemed ―unreasonable‖ medical expenses. They argued that the Tennessee Supreme Court‘s decision in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, 459 S.W.3d 33 (Tenn. 2014), established a new standard in Tennessee for determining the reasonable amount of medical expenses as a matter of law. The trial court granted the defendants‘ motion in limine, thus excluding the testimony of the treating physician. For the following reasons, the trial court‘s order is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Here are the links to the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by the special judge:

New Opinion on Qualified Protective Orders under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(f)

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Caldwell v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, No. W2015-01076-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2016).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:
In this health care liability action, this Court granted the defendants‟ application pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 10 to address two issues. We have determined that: (1) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) does not preempt Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(f); and (2) the trial court erred in denying the defendants‟ petition for a qualified protective order pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(f) because it is undisputed that the defendants complied with the procedural requirements of subsection (f), and the plaintiff did not file an objection as permitted under the statute. We, therefore, reverse the trial court‟s decision and remand for the entry of a qualified protective order.
Here is a link to the opinion: