New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal Overturned on Appeal in Accord with Recent Tennessee Supreme Court Precedent

This is a follow-up post to my Jul. 5, 2017 post (http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2017/07/new-health-care-liability-action.html).  The Tennessee Court of Appeals just released its opinion in Grizzle v. Park West Medical Center, No. E2016-01068-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2017).  The syllabus from the slip opinion states as follows:

The plaintiff initiated this health care liability action on January 25, 2016. The defendant medical provider filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the plaintiff had failed to attach the documentation required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(b) to demonstrate that proper pre-suit notice had been transmitted. The defendant also asserted that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to substantially comply with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) regarding a medical authorization compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). While noting that the plaintiff had substantially complied with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(a)(4) and (b), the trial court found that the medical authorization forwarded by the plaintiff was incomplete and failed to comply with HIPAA’s release requirements. The trial court therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff has timely appealed. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff substantially complied with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(a)(4) and (b). We reverse, however, the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to substantially comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26- 121(a)(2)(E).

Here is a link to the slip opinion, to wit:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/betty_grizzle_v._parkwest_medical_center.pdf

NOTE: The Court of Appeals correctly applied the law from Bray v. Khuri to overturn the dismissal below under Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121(a)(2)(E).  It did, however, affirm the trial court's determination that Plaintiff had substantially complied with Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121(a)(4), (b).  This is a correct decision that is consistent with Tennessee law.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Tennessee Supreme Court Holds That a HIPAA-compliant Medical Authorization Is Not Required to Be Sent When Only One Defendant Is Being Sent Presuit Notice of a Potential Claim

The Tennessee Supreme Court released its opinion today in Bray v. Khuri, No. W2015-00397-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Jul. 5, 2017).  The syllabus from the slip opinion states as follows:

Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) requires a person who asserts a potential claim for healthcare liability to include with pre-suit notice a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization permitting the healthcare provider who receives the notice to obtain complete medical records “from each other provider being sent the notice.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). Here, the plaintiff sent pre-suit notice of her claim to a single healthcare provider and included a medical authorization. After the plaintiff filed suit, the defendant healthcare provider moved to dismiss, asserting the plaintiff had failed to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold that a prospective plaintiff who provides pre-suit notice to one potential defendant is not required under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) to provide the single potential defendant with a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization. We reverse the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. 

(Footnote omitted.)

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/braydeborah.opn_.pdf

NOTE: This decision is correct and a commonsense construction of Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121(a)(2)(E).  My hat's off to the Tennessee Supreme Court for this decision.