New Health Care Liability Action: Case Remanded Because Order Was Not Final; Trial Court Sanctions Plaintiffs' Counsel

The Tennessee Court of Appeals released its opinion in Ibsen v. Summit View of Farragut, LLC, No. E2018-01249-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2019).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this healthcare liability action, the defendants filed a motion for a qualified protective order allowing them to conduct ex parte interviews with some of the plaintiffs’ treating healthcare providers pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. [sec.] 29-26-121(f). After the trial court granted the qualified protective order allowing the interviews, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote a letter to plaintiffs’ treating providers concerning the interviews. The defendants then filed a joint motion for sanctions asserting that the letters sent by plaintiffs’ counsel violated the trial court’s order by attempting to prevent the treating providers from participating in the interviews. The trial court granted monetary sanctions against the plaintiffs and their counsel and ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to send retraction letters to plaintiffs’ treating providers. The plaintiffs appeal. We have determined that the order on appeal is not a final order and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

Here is a link to the opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/hallysah_ibsen_coa_majority_opinion.pdf

NOTE: Sending letters to treating providers like this is not uncommon or per se wrong.  See Brazier v. Crockett Hosp., No. M2004-02941-COA-R10-CV, 2006 WL 2040408, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 483, at *4–8 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2006).  However, Brazier was decided before Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121(f) was enacted.  Compare id. at *1 with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f), Stat. Hist. (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance, current thought 2019 Reg. Sess.).  What got the plaintiffs in trouble here is that they did what the trial court told them not to do.   

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Plaintiff's Case Dismissed Due to Counsel's Failure to Comply with Onerous Presuit Notice and Filing Requirements

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Newman v. State, No. M2018-00948-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2019).  The syllabus form the slip opinion reads as follows:

A patient in a state psychiatric facility was killed by another patient. The surviving spouse of the deceased patient brought suit against the State and was awarded damages for the wrongful death of her husband. Because the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act applies to the surviving spouse’s claim, and because she failed to comply with the Act’s requirements of pre-suit notice and good faith certification, we must reverse the decision of the Claims Commission.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

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

NOTE: This case is a companion case to the one discussed in my Aug. 8, 2016 blog post:

http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2016/08/new-health-care-liability-action.html

Both of these cases demonstrate the importance of complying with Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121 and -122; they also demonstrate the wide net cast by Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-101.  Health care liability actions are incredibly complicated and byzantine, which can cause problems for lawyers who do not practice in this area of the law.  

A person died due to alleged negligence here and the case(s) should be allowed to proceed as any other case would without being dismissed due to procedural technicalities.  That would be fair.

Defense Verdict Upheld on Appeal in an Auto Tort Case

Yesterday the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Higgins v. Green, No. M2016-01369-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2017).  Here is the syllabus from the slip opinion:

This appeal arises from a two-car accident. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the collision occurred because Defendant violated several statutory rules of the road by failing to yield the right of way and making a turn across traffic without confirming it was safe to do so. Defendant denied any negligence and claimed that Plaintiff was more than 50% at fault. Following a trial, the jury found that Plaintiff was 75% at fault; as a result, judgment was entered for Defendant. On appeal Plaintiff contends she is entitled to a new trial for two reasons. She contends the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the testimony of the investigating police officer to what the parties told him at the scene and to matters that are reflected in his accident report. She also contends she is entitled to a new trial due to jury misconduct. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

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

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Court of Appeals Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Defense; Extraordinary Cause Found to Exist, Which Excused Compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(b)

The Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued its opinion in Kirby v. Sumner County Regional Medical Center, No. M2015-01181-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 12, 2016).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:

This is a health care liability action.  The plaintiff suffered permanent damage after receiving medical treatment from the defendant hospital. The plaintiff filed suit exactly one year after her hospital stay. The defendant hospital moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with the pre-suit notice and good faith requirements applicable to health care liability actions. The plaintiff later argued that the failure to comply with the necessary requirements should be excused for extraordinary cause as evidenced by the passing of her legal counsel‟s son four days prior to the filing of the complaint. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that no extraordinary cause existed. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

(Footnote omitted.)

Here is a link to the opinion:

 http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/kirbybetty.opn.pdf

NOTE: If EVER there was a case where "extraordinary cause" existed, which would excuse compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121(b), it is this case.  Plaintiff's counsel's infant son passed away, which prevented Plaintiff's counsel from complying with -121(b). 

Tenth Anniversary!

This post is a little belated, but, as of January of this year, this blog is ten years old!  

Doesn't seem like it's been a decade already.  Whew!

Thanks to all of you who read this blog and email me with questions, comments, etc. 

New Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion on Summary Judgments: Trial Courts Must Explain Reasoning When Ruling on Summary Judgment Motions and Can't Delegate that Function to Counsel

The Tennessee Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Smith v. UHS Lakeside, Inc., No. W2011-02405-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Jul. 15, 2014).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This appeal involves the manner in which a trial court granted motions for summary judgment in a proceeding involving the death of a patient whose treatment for viral encephalitis was delayed because he was also being assessed for involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital. The widow of the deceased patient filed suit against three health care providers in the Circuit Court for Shelby County. In her original complaint and four subsequent amended complaints, the widow asserted eight causes of action against one or more of the providers. The trial court eventually granted a series of summary judgments dismissing all the claims against one of the providers without explaining the grounds for its decisions and requested counsel for the provider to prepare appropriate orders “establish[ing] the rationale for the [c]ourt’s ruling in quite specific detail.” The provider’s counsel prepared detailed orders adopting all the arguments the provider had made in favor of its summary judgment motions, and the trial court signed these orders over the widow’s objections. The widow appealed, arguing that the trial court had failed to provide reasons for its decisions and that the orders did not accurately reflect what had occurred at the summary judgment hearings. The Court of Appeals vacated the disputed orders because the trial court had failed to state the legal grounds for its decisions as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 and remanded the case to the trial court. Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., No. W2011-02405-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 210250, at *12-13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2013). We granted the provider’s application for permission to appeal. We have determined that the record establishes that the contested orders were not the product of the trial court’s independent judgment, and therefore, we hold that the trial court failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/smithmaryopn.pdf

New Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion: Presuit Notices Extend Saving Statute in This Particular Health Care Liability Action

The Tennessee Supreme Court just released its opinion in Rajvongs v. Wright, No. M2011-01889-SC-S09-CV (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2013).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:

The plaintiff filed his initial health care liability action against the defendant prior to the enactment of the pre-suit notice requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his original action. More than one year later, the plaintiff refiled his action after the effective date of section 29-26-121. The defendant moved for summary judgment, alleging that the plaintiff’s second action was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff countered that his pre-suit notice commenced his new action prior to the expiration of the one-year saving statute. Alternatively, the plaintiff argued that Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121 extended the saving statute by 120 days. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment but granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals granted the application for permission to appeal and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment. We hold that the plaintiff’s action was commenced by the filing of a second health care liability complaint rather than by providing pre-suit notice. We further hold that a plaintiff who files his initial action prior to the effective date of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121, dismisses his original action, properly provides pre-suit notice, and refiles his action after the effective date of the statute, is entitled to the 120-day extension. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Here is a link to the unanimous opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/rajvongsopn.pdf

Practice tip: Pay close attention to page 7 of this opinion.

This post is related to two prior posts: one from June 21, 2012; and the other from June 30, 2012.  Links to both are below:

http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2012/06/medical-malpractice-saving-statute.html

http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2012/06/medical-malpractice-saving-statute-not.html

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 Changes December 1, 2013

http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/youraba/201212article10.html

Health Care Liability Action (f.k.a. Medical Malpractice Action): New Opinion on Contiguous State Rule

The Tennessee Court of Appeals just released its opinion in Gilbert v. Wessels, No. E2013-00255-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2013).  Here is the summary from the opinion:

This Court granted an extraordinary appeal in this health care liability action to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to waive the contiguous state requirement for a testifying expert witness set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated §29-26-115(b). Discerning no error, we affirm.

Here's a link to the opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/wesselsfinal.pdf

New Medical Malpractice Opinion on Presuit Notices

The Tennessee Court of Appeals just released its opinion in Shockley v. Mental Health Coop., Inc., No. M2013-00494-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2013).  The summary from the opinion reads as follows:

The trial court dismissed Appellant’s medical malpractice and wrongful death case for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement found in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121(a). Appellant’s pre-suit notice contained a misnomer, naming the Appellee’s fundraising entity, rather than Appellee, as the proper defendant. The trial court determined that under the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 307 (Tenn. 2012), substantial compliance was not effective to satisfy the statutory requirement for pre-suit notice. Furthermore, because the type of notice required under Section 29-26-121 precedes the filing of the lawsuit, it is not the same type of notice as required for correction of misnomers in pleadings under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03; thus, this rule will not operate to cure the misnomer in the pre-suit notice. Because the Appellant failed to show extraordinary cause for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing this matter. Affirmed and remanded.

Here's a link to the opinion:

https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/shockleyt_110513.pdf

New Health Care Liability Action (f.k.a Medical Malpractice) Opinion

The Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its opinion today in Burchfield v. Renfree, No. E2012-01582-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2013).  Here's the summary from the slip opinion:

This is a health care liability action wherein the trial by jury resulted in a judgment for the Defendant, Dr. Timothy Renfree. Plaintiffs, Larry and Dinnie Burchfield, filed this lawsuit against Dr. Renfree alleging that he negligently performed surgery on Mr. Burchfield’s right arm and caused nerve damage. After the jury returned its verdict in favor of Dr. Renfree, the Burchfields filed post-trial motions seeking relief from the judgment and alleging numerous errors in the administration of the trial. The trial court denied the post-trial motions and affirmed the jury’s verdict as thirteenth juror. The Burchfields appealed. We vacate the jury’s verdict, finding reversible error in the administration of the trial, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Here's a link to the forty-six-page opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/burchfield.pdf

New Wrongful Death Case

The Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued its opinion in Rickman v. Rickman, No. M2013-00251-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2013).  The summary of the opinion states as follows:

This case concerns whether the widow of a deceased man may share in the wrongful death settlement obtained by his personal representative. We conclude that the postnuptial agreement entered into by the widow prevents her from benefitting from the wrongful death settlement. Affirmed and remanded.

Here's a link to the opinion:

https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/rickmang_101613.pdf

New Health Care Liability Action (f.k.a. Medical Malpractice Case)

For some reason, I haven't posted this case yet; I'm not sure why other than I've just been busy.  On June 27, 2013, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, issued its opinion in Foster v. Chiles, No. E2012-01780-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2013).  The summary states as follows:

This is a health care liability case. Samuel E. Foster and his wife, Mary Foster,[] timely filed a complaint after properly sending pre-suit notices to the potential defendants as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a) (2012). After nonsuiting their first lawsuit, they timely filed a second complaint in which they alleged the same cause of action against the same defendants. The second complaint alleged compliance with section 121(a), citing the notices already properly sent before the first complaint was filed. The trial court dismissed the second complaint with prejudice based upon the court’s determination that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the notice requirement of section 121(a). We hold that plaintiffs complied with section 121(a)’s notice requirement by giving a written notice of their potential health care liability claim to each defendant at least 60 days prior to the filing of their second complaint.  We further hold that section 121 does not mandate dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance with its terms, and that plaintiffs’ inadvertent failure to file – with the second complaint – proof of their service of the subject notices does not warrant dismissal with prejudice. We vacate the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

(Footnote omitted.)

Here is a link to that slip opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/fosterse.pdf

The Appellants-Defendants in the trial court filed an application for permission to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court on August 26, 2013.  Appellees-Plaintiffs filed their answer to same on Sept. 5, 2013.  Currently the case is before the Tennessee Supreme Court under Docket No. E2012-01780-SC-R11-CV.  The case history can be viewed at this link:

 http://www2.tncourts.gov/PublicCaseHistory/CaseDetails.aspx?id=57381&Party=True.

UPDATE: the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Tennessee Court of Appeals in this case on Jan. 27, 2015.  You can read about it at my Jan. 27, 2015 post, to wit:

 http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2015/01/new-tennessee-supreme-court-opinion-on.html

New Medical Malpractice Opinion

Today the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Haley v. State of Tennessee, No. E2012-02484-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2013).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This is a medical malpractice case.[] The plaintiff filed a claim with the Division of Claims administration, as the resident physician alleged to have engaged in negligence was purportedly connected to a University of Tennessee training program at Erlanger Hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The State moved the Commissioner to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with the requirements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a). The Commissioner reluctantly agreed with the State’s position. We hold that the plaintiff complied with section 121(a)’s notice requirement by complying with the claim notice requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-402. We further hold that section 121 does not mandate dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance with its terms, and that the plaintiff’s failure to provide all the items denoted in section 121(a) does not warrant dismissal with prejudice under the facts of this case. We vacate the dismissal order and remand for further proceedings.

(Footnote omitted.)

Here's a link to the opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/haleyopn.pdf

How Many Die from Medical Mistakes in U.S. Hospitals?

It's estimated to be nearly 210,000 a year.  Please see link to the article below.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals

New Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion on Service of Process: Lack of Prompt Return of Proof of Service Does Not Require Dismissal of a Civil Action

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued its opinion today in Fair v. Cochran, No. E2011-00831-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Sept. 12, 2013).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

We granted this appeal to determine whether the return of proof of service of process 412 days after issuance of a summons precludes a plaintiff from relying upon the original commencement of the lawsuit to toll the running of the statute of limitations. We hold that the plain language of Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and 4.03 does not condition the effectiveness of the original commencement to toll the statute of limitations upon the prompt return of proof of service. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. We remand this case to the trial court to determine whether service of process occurred within ninety days of issuance of the summons. If so, the plaintiff may rely upon the original commencement of the lawsuit to toll the statute of limitations.

Here is a link to the majority opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/fairci_opn.pdf

Here is a link to Justice Holder's concurrence:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/fairci_con_opn.pdf

In all candor, the plaintiff's lawyer in this appeal was nice enough to let me write the supplemental brief and argue this case before the Tennessee Supreme Court (which I asked him to let me do).  I wanted to take this opportunity to thank him.  Thanks Mike!

New Tennessee Supreme Court Products Liability Case: Jury Verdict for Minor Plaintiff Reinstated

Yesterday the Tennessee Supreme Court issued its opinion in Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., No. W2010-01493-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Aug. 30, 2013).  The summary from the opinion reads as follows:

A six-year-old boy’s spine was fractured in a car wreck when the force of the impact caused him to jackknife over his lap seatbelt and pushed the seatbelt into his stomach and against his spine. The child’s mother filed suit on his behalf against Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), alleging that the defective design of the seatbelt and Ford’s failure to warn of a potential danger caused the child’s permanent paralysis and other enhanced injuries. A jury returned a $43.8 million verdict for compensatory damages, finding Ford to be 15% at fault and two non-parties 85% at fault. Ford’s share of the verdict, based on its degree of fault, was $6,570,000. The jury awarded no punitive damages. Ford moved for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was excessive. The trial court denied the motion for new trial and affirmed the verdict in its capacity as thirteenth juror. The Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, ruled that the verdict was excessive and remanded to the trial court with a suggestion of remittitur from $43.8 million to $12.9 million, a 70.55% reduction. The suggested remittitur, if the plaintiff accepted it, would reduce Ford’s share of the verdict to $1,935,000. Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., No. W2010-01493-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 1264454, at *18- 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2012). We hold that the Court of Appeals had the authority to suggest a remittitur even though Ford did not request a remittitur. We further hold that the Court of Appeals erred in remitting the verdict to $12.9 million. Having taken the strongest legitimate view of all the material evidence in favor of the verdict, assuming the truth of all that supports it, allowing all reasonable inferences, and discarding any to the contrary, we hold that the jury’s verdict was supported by material evidence and was within the range of reasonableness. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the jury’s verdict is reinstated.

Here is a link to the opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/mealsaundreyopn_0.pdf

Medical Malpractice: Toledo Hospital Threw Out Donor Kidney, Now Denies Negligence

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/toledo-hospital-threw-donor-kidney-now-denies-negligence/story?id=20110334

Premises Liability: Summary Judgment for Defense Reversed!

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Parker v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., No. E2013-00727-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2013).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:

This is a premises liability case in which Plaintiffs alleged that a shower bench in Hotel collapsed, causing Husband to fall and sustain injuries. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant, claiming negligence. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that he did not install the bench and did not have actual or constructive notice of the independent contractor’s negligent installation of the bench. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

Here's a link to the opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/parkergregopn.pdf

New Medical Malpractice Opinion

The Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its opinion today in Young v. Kennedy, No. W2012-00836-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2013).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This case involves the application of the medical malpractice statute of limitations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant doctor, finding that the statute of limitations defense was not waived by her failure to raise it in her first pre-answer motion, that the defense was sufficiently pleaded, and that the undisputed facts in the record supported a finding that the statute of limitations had expired at the time of filing the initial complaint. Affirmed and remanded.

Here is a link to the opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/youngjopn.pdf