Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision to exclude her proffered expert for failing to comply with the locality rule expressed in Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011). Plaintiff also appeals the trial court’s decision to grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm the decision of the trial court to exclude the expert. Additionally, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants.
This blog is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to provide general information and understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the blog publisher. This blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
Search This Blog
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Summary Judgment for Defense Upheld on Appeal Because Plaintiff's Expert Was Not Qualified to Render an Opinion under the Locality Rule
Friday, October 21, 2022
New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Summary Judgment for Physician Upheld on Appeal Due to Her Being an Employee of the University of Tennessee and Immune from Suit
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Parker ex rel. Parker v. Dassow, No. E2021-01402-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2022). The syllabus from the opinion reads:
This appeal involves a healthcare liability action. The plaintiff sued a physician who had interpreted the results of her fetal ultrasound. The physician was employed by a Tennessee state university as a professor. Her job duties included both educational responsibilities and clinical care to patients in the residency clinics. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the physician, finding that she had received no personal gain by her act of interpreting the ultrasound. Therefore, the physician possessed absolute immunity under the Tennessee Claims Commission Act for her actions within the scope of her state employment. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Here is a link to the opinion:
https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/alexandrea_parker_v_jeanie_d._dassow_m.d..pdf.
NOTE: This opinion offers a great discussion of Tennessee's current summary judgment standard and physician immunity in a health care liability action (née medical malpractice case) when the physician is a state employee only not acting for personal gain.
Saturday, October 08, 2022
New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Summary Judgment for Hospital that Was a Governmental Entity Upheld on Appeal Because It Could Not Be Held Vicariously Liable for the Negligence of Nonemployee Physicians
The Tennessee Court of Appeals released its opinion Howell v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, No. E2021-01197-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2022). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:
This appeal involves a healthcare liability action. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant hospital, which is a governmental entity, alleging negligence by physicians practicing medicine within the hospital emergency department. The supervising physician was not an employee of the defendant hospital but an employee of a company contracting with the defendant hospital. The medical resident physician and medical student treating the patient in the emergency department also were not employees of the defendant hospital. During summary judgment proceedings, the plaintiffs presented no evidence of direct liability by the defendant hospital or of negligence by the nursing staff at the defendant hospital. Plaintiffs presented such evidence only as to physicians not directly employed by the defendant hospital. Determining that the physicians were not employees of the defendant hospital, the trial court held that the defendant hospital could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of these non-employee physicians under the Governmental Tort Liability Act []. As such, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Here is a link to the opinion:
NOTE: The bottom line from this opinion is this: a hospital cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of nonemployee physicians under the Governmental Tort Liability Act.