Tennessee Civil Procedure: A Plaintiff May Amend Complaint Any Time Before a Responsive Pleading Is Filed or the Dismissal of Initial Complaint Becomes Final

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Justice v. Nordquist, No. E2020-01152-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2021).  Here is the syllabus from the slip opinion:

Loring Justice . . . [,] individually and as next friend of N.N./N.J.],] . . . sued Vey Michael Nordquist, Ph.D.  . . . in the Circuit Court for Knox County . . . over Defendant’s actions in connection with paternity litigation to which Plaintiff was a party. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, but never filed a responsive pleading to the original complaint. The Trial Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Before time for appeal expired, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as he was entitled to do under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01 given that Defendant never filed a responsive pleading to the original complaint. However, the Trial Court never ruled on Plaintiff’s amended complaint. The order appealed from is not a final judgment, meaning we lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/e2020-01152_justice_v._nordquist.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion is a good reminder that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading that would prohibit free amendment under Rule 15 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.  

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Defense Verdict in Second Trial (Which Was Bifurcated) Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals released its decision in Jernigan v. Paasche, No. No. M2020-00673-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this health care liability action, an initial jury trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant physicians. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court granted. Prior to the second jury trial, the trial court determined that the trial should be bifurcated such that the first phase would address only the applicable standard of care and whether the defendants deviated therefrom, and the second phase would address causation. Following completion of the standard of care phase, the jury again ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff filed a second motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The plaintiff timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/jernigan.david_.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion deals with the bifurcation of issues for trial, the admission of expert witness testimony, and waiver of issues.  It is a must-read decision for any lawyer who handled health care liability actions governed by Tennessee substantive law.  

Further, I expect the Tennessee Supreme Court will be asked (via an application for permission to appeal) to review this decision.  The bifurcation below might be what gets that application granted; we shall see.   

New Tennessee Case on Recently Enacted Anti-SLAPP Statute: Dismissal of Action Under New Statute Upheld on Appeal

On Friday, the Tennessee Court of Appeals released its decision in Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, No. M2020-00553-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This case arises from a defamation and false light lawsuit filed in the General Sessions Court for Wilson County . . . .  The action was dismissed pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act . . . and the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Circuit Court for Wilson County . . . .  After concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the circuit court transferred the case to this Court. On appeal, the parties dispute whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and the defendant argues that the ruling of the general sessions court should be affirmed. We conclude that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide this appeal and, discerning no error, we affirm the decision of the general sessions court dismissing the plaintiffs’ legal action pursuant to the TPPA. 

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/nandigamneurologyv.beavers.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: This is a case of first impression on the recently enacted Tennessee Public Participation Act. Judge Davis does an excellent job of explaining this new law and its application to the facts herein.  Look for the plaintiffs to ask the Tennessee Supreme Court for further review, which might occur given the novelty of this law.  Stay tuned.    

New Laws Effective in Tennessee on July 1, 2021

Here is an abstract of the new laws that go into effect in Tennessee on July 1, 2021, to wit:

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Archives/Joint/publications/effective%20date%20_7-1-21_and_later.pdf.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Tennessee Supreme Court Holds That Cap on Noneconomic Damages Applies to Claims of Injured Spouse and Derivative Loss-of-consortium Claim in the Aggregate

The Tennessee Supreme Court released its decision today in Yebuah v. Center for Urological Treatment, PLC, No. M2018-01652-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. June 2, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is a healthcare liability action involving the application of the statutory cap on noneconomic damages to loss of consortium claims. The issue before the Court is whether the statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies separately to a spouse’s loss of consortium claim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102, thus allowing each plaintiff to receive an award of up to $750,000 in noneconomic damages. Here, the surgery patient filed suit for noneconomic damages resulting from the defendant physicians’ negligence, namely that a portion of a Gelport device was unintentionally left in her body after surgery. In the same suit, the patient’s spouse claimed damages for loss of consortium. The jury awarded the patient $4,000,000 in damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The jury also awarded her husband $500,000 in damages for loss of consortium. The trial court initially applied the statutory cap on noneconomic damages by entering a judgment in favor of both plaintiffs collectively for a total judgment of $750,000. However, the trial court subsequently granted the plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend and applied the statutory cap to each plaintiff separately, thereby entering a judgment of $750,000 for the patient and $500,000 for her husband. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold that the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102 allows both plaintiffs to recover only $750,000 in the aggregate for noneconomic damages. We therefore reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals and the trial court.

Here is a link to the majority opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/yebuahcynthia.opn_.pdf.

Justices Lee, joined by Justice Clark, dissented; here is that opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/yebuahcynthia.sep_.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: This decision is yet another result of the tort reform pushed by ALEC et al. that treats the citizens of Tennessee unfairly