New Health Care Liability Action: Upon Remand from SCOTN to Resolve Previously Pretermitted Issues, the Trial Court's Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant Physician Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals, on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court, has issued its opinion in Ingram v. Gallagher, No. E2020-01222-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2023). The opinion's syllabus reads:

This is a health care liability case. George Gary Ingram ("Ingram") filed a health care liability action in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County ("the Trial Court") against, among others, Dr. Michael Gallagher ("Dr. Gallagher") and Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority d/b/a Erlanger Health System ("Erlanger") ("Defendants," collectively). Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint naming Dr. Gallagher as the sole defendant. He thus removed the other defendants, including Erlanger, from the lawsuit. Dr. Gallagher then filed an answer asserting, as a defense, that his governmental employer, Erlanger, was not made a party to the action. Consequently, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the Trial Court's order of dismissal as to Erlanger, which was denied. Plaintiff's claims were dismissed. In Ingram v. Gallagher, No. E2020-01222-COA-R3-CV, 2021 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283, 2021 WL 3028161 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2021) ("Ingram I"), we reversed the Trial Court, holding that the Trial Court erred in denying Plaintiff's motion to revise the order of dismissal. We pretermitted all other issues. The Tennessee Supreme Court then reversed this Court, holding that Erlanger was removed from the lawsuit when Plaintiff filed his amended complaint and that the order of dismissal had no legal effect so there was no order to amend. Our Supreme Court remanded for us to address the remaining issues. We hold, inter alia, that the savings statute is inapplicable as the Governmental Tort Liability Act ("the GTLA") is implicated; that the Trial Court did not err in dismissing Erlanger for lack of pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith; and that the Trial Court did not err in granting summary judgment to Dr. Gallagher as his governmental employer, Erlanger, was not made a party. We affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion: TN Courts (link will take you to page where opinion can be viewed).

NOTE: This is not a surprising result because the defendant-physician's employer was not made a party-defendant as well, which is required under the GTLA. 

Further, this post is related to my May 18, 2023-post, to wit: Tony Duncan Law: New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: SCOTN Determines Amended Complaint Filed as of Matter of Right Under Rule 15 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Is Determinative and Remands Case Back to COATN to Address Issues Previously Deemed Pretermitted (theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com).

Trial Court's Exclusion of Evidence Regarding Medical Bills Due to Lack of Expert Proof of Their Being Necessary Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Holzmer v. Estate of James F. Walsh, Jr., No. M2022-00616-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2023). The syllabus reads:

This is an appeal from a jury verdict awarding damages to a plaintiff injured in a car accident. The plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of her medical bills. Because the plaintiff failed to present expert proof that her medical expenses were necessary, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the bills. The jury verdict is affirmed.

Here is a link to the opinion: 

Majority Opinion M2022-00616-COA-R3-CV.pdf (tncourts.gov)

NOTE: Look for this one to be appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Time will tell. 

Two New SCOTN Health Care Liability Action Opinions: Court of Appeals' Reversal of Trial Court's Dismissal of Vicarious Liability Claims Against the Principals Upheld on Appeal Due to Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act's Abrogation of the Common Law's Operation-of-law Exception

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued its opinions in Ultsch v. HTI Memorial Hosp. Corp., No. M2020-00341-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. July 20, 2023) and Gardner v. Saint Thomas Midtown Hosp., No. M2019-02237-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. July 20, 2023). The syllabus from the majority slip opinions in Ultsch reads:

“When there is a conflict between the common law and a statute, the provision of the statute must prevail.” Graves v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 148 S.W. 239, 242 (Tenn. 1912). That longstanding rule is the key to resolving this case, which pits a common-law rule governing vicarious liability claims against certain procedural provisions of Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act. The defendant in this case moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under the common-law rule. The trial court granted that motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed after concluding that application of the common-law rule would conflict with the Act. We agree that the Act necessarily implies an intent to abrogate the common-law rule in the circumstances of this case and affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Ultsch, No. M2020-00341-SC-R11-CV, slip. op. at 1. 

The syllabus from Gardner reads the same. No. M2019-02237-SC-R11-CV, slip op. at 1. 

Here is the majority opinion in Ultsch: 

691fd502-7aa9-486c-a1b9-97092d595eb0.pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justice Lee's opinion that concurs and dissents in part:  

ULTSCH-Separate Concur Opinion (J.Lee).pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justices Page and Bivins's dissent: 

ULTSCH-Separate Dissent Opinion (J.Bivins).pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is the majority opinion in Gardner: 

54eb201c-81d3-4f47-b239-aa6a1bdee20b.pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justice Lee's opinion that concurs and dissents in part: 

GARDNER - Separate CONCUR IN PART Opinion (J.Lee).pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justices Page and Bivins's dissent: 

GARDNER-Separate DISSENT Opinion (J.Bivins).pdf (tncourts.gov)

NOTE: These two decisions must be read by any lawyer who handles health care liability actions (f/k/a medical malpractice cases) governed by Tennessee substantive law because they will affect nearly every case of that sort, etc. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Case Refiled under the Saving Statute Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Richards v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, No. M2022-00597-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2023). The syllabus reads:

This appeal concerns a complaint for health care liability. Although Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c) provides for an extension of the applicable statutes of limitations in health care liability actions when pre-suit notice is given, it also specifies that “[i]n no event shall this section operate to shorten or otherwise extend the statutes of limitations or repose applicable to any action asserting a claim for health care liability, nor shall more than one (1) extension be applicable to any [health care] provider.” After a prior lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff provided new pre-suit notice and refiled in reliance on the Tennessee saving statute and an extension under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c). The trial court dismissed the refiled complaint with prejudice, however, holding, among other things, that Plaintiff could not utilize the statutory extension in his refiled action because he had already utilized a statutory extension in the first lawsuit. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. 

Here is a link to the majority opinion: Majority Opinion 2022-597-COA.pdf (tncourts.gov).

Here is a link to Judge Stafford's separate opinion: Separate Opinion 2022-597-COA.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This is a case I am involved in; while I was not involved in the trial court proceedings, the plaintiff's counsel was nice enough to let me help on appeal. Because of this, I will not comment further except to note that we will more than likely seek review by SCOTN on this issue.