New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Summary Judgment for the Defense Affirmed Due to the Plaintiff's Expert Being Disqualified under the Locality Rule

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Bowen v. Nelson, No. W2024-00749-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2025). The syllabus reads:

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of her proffered expert for failure to comply with the locality rule. Plaintiff also appeals the grant of summary of judgment based on the exclusion of that expert. Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony, we affirm that ruling. Additionally, we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment as the excluded testimony was the only evidence offered regarding the applicable standard of care.  

Here is a link to the slip opinion: BowenGladysClaireOPN.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion offers a good discussion of the locality rule that applies to expert witnesses in a health care liability action as codified in Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-115(a)(1). 

Trial Court's Grant of the Defense's Motion for Summary Judgment Upheld on Appeal Because of the Plaintiff's Untimely Response Thereto

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Brecker v. Story, No. M2023-01640-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27. 2025).  The syllabus reads:

The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against his former attorney and her law firm, alleging legal malpractice and related claims. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by the affidavit of the defendant-attorney and various other documents. Just days before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff filed an untimely response to the motion for summary judgment along with voluminous exhibits. The defendants asked the trial court to disregard the late-filed exhibits and grant them summary judgment. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s response was untimely and deemed it stricken. In the absence of a response, the trial court also took the defendants’ statements of undisputed material facts as true. It then examined each of the causes of action asserted by the plaintiff and concluded that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: Majority Opinion - M2023-01640-COA-R3-CV.pdf.

NOTE: This is a must-read decision for any lawyer who handles cases that are governed by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Summary Judgment for the Defense Upheld on Appeal Because Plaintiff's Expert Proof Was Insufficient to Create a Genuine Issue of Material Fact

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its decision in Dickerson v. United Medical Transportation, LLC, No.  No. W2023-01084-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2024). The opinion's syllabus reads:

After suffering an injury, patient alleged that in-patient facility was negligent in failing to inform medical transportation company of his physical limitations prior to his discharge from the facility. In response to the facility’s summary judgment motion, patient relied on the testimony of an “expert in passenger ground transportation.” The trial court found that issues of fact remained as to patient’s ambulation needs, but granted summary judgment as to standard of care and breach because patient’s expert was not competent to testify under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, and the common knowledge exception did not apply. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: DickersonRobertOPN.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion reminds one of the general need for expert testimony for one to prevail in a health care liability action. 

Summary Judgment Reversed on Appeal Because Movant Supplied an Altered Memorandum Opinion to the Trial Court in Support of That Motion

The Tennesse Court of Appeals just issued its opinion in Giro v. Wilburn, No. E2023-01541-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2024). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads: 

This appeal concerns service of process and the statute of limitations. Vicki Ann Giro (“Giro”) sued Kaleb Wilburn (“Wilburn”) in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) for injuries Giro sustained in a car accident with Wilburn. Giro failed to timely serve the summons in compliance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 and failed to issue new process before the statute of limitations expired. Giro filed a motion for enlargement of time. In opposition to Giro’s motion, the Trial Court was furnished with an altered copy of Hollis ex rel. Nicole N. v. Sanchez, No. M2022-01190-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 5920145 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2023), no appl. perm. appeal filed. The altered copy of Hollis retains the heading “MEMORANDUM OPINION” but omits Footnote 1 stating that, as a memorandum opinion, Hollis is not to be cited or relied on in any unrelated case pursuant to Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10. The Trial Court, which had been furnished on Wilburn’s behalf with the altered copy missing the explanatory footnote, relied heavily on Hollis to deny Giro’s motion for enlargement of time. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for the Trial Court to exercise its discretion on whether to grant Giro’s motion for enlargement of time without considering Hollis or any other opinion designated by this Court as a memorandum opinion.

Here is a link to the opinion: Giro vs. Giro Memorandum Opinion (unsigned).pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: It is not a win if you have to cheat. My two cents' worth. 

Grant of Summary Judgment Reversed on Appeal Because the Issue It Was Based on Was Not Raised in the Motion

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Bakker v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, No. E2022-00872-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2024). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads: 

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital in this premises liability case, finding that the defendant had no notice of the alleged dangerous or defective condition on its premises. The plaintiff has appealed. Following our review, we determine that the plaintiff was not provided notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to all issues to be considered by the trial court at the summary judgment stage. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's grant of summary judgment.

Here is the link to the opinion: 

Bakker, M.D. v. Chattanooga Hamilton Hospital Authority.pdf (tncourts.gov)

NOTE: This is an excellent opinion that addresses when a trial court grants summary judgment on an issue not raised in the motion seeking same and why that is error. This is a must-read opinin for any lawyer who handles civil actions in Tennessee state courts. 

New Premises Liability Case: Summary Judgment for the Defense Upheld on Appeal; Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence Not Warranted

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Beasley v. Jae Nails Bar, LLC, No. M2022-01330-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2023). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is a premises liability action in which the plaintiff slipped and fell while she was walking to a pedicure station in a nail salon. Two principal issues are presented. First, the plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by denying her Tenn. R. Civ. P. 34A.02 motion for spoliation of evidence by finding that the defendant was not put on notice that a video recording from a surveillance camera in the nail salon was relevant to pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. Second, the plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing her complaint on the basis that there was no proof that the defendant had created the allegedly hazardous condition in the nail salon or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition. We affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: UNSIGNED-M2022-1330-COA-BEASLEY.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: In reverse order to that addressed by the court, this opinion offers a great analysis of the elements of a premises liability case and of what constitutes spoliation of evidence worthy of sanctions. 

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. 

Summary Judgment for a Defendant Upheld on Appeal: Trial Court Found that Movant Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to Injured Plaintiff

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Lynch v. Poe, No. M2021-00867-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2022). The syllabus form the slip opinion reads:

This is a multi-party premises liability and general negligence action among a roofer who fell from the homeowner’s roof, the homeowner who erected the scaffolding at issue, and the scaffolding company that rented the scaffolding to the homeowner, but did not erect the scaffolding. The complaint alleged that the roofer slipped and fell on the roof and then bounced over to the scaffolding before falling to the ground. The complaint also alleged that had a safety rail been installed on the scaffolding it could have prevented the roofer’s fall. The homeowner filed an answer denying liability and alleging comparative fault against the scaffolding company. Consequently, the roofer filed an amended complaint adding the scaffolding company as a codefendant. After discovery, the scaffolding company filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it owed no duty to the roofer or the homeowner because it had no control over the premises nor actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the premises. The roofer and homeowner opposed the motion contending, inter alia, that this is a case of general negligence against the scaffolding company because the homeowner relied on the scaffolding company for guidance during the installation process and the scaffolding company assumed the duty of care to ensure the scaffold was installed safely. They also contend that summary judgment was not appropriate because material facts are in dispute. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims against the scaffolding company, and this appeal followed. We find that the material facts are not in dispute and that the scaffolding company was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on claims sounding in premises liability and general negligence. Thus, we affirm the summary dismissal of all claims against the scaffolding company.

Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/david_lynch_sr._et_al._v._bradley_e._poe_et_al._-_m2021-00867-coa-r3-cv.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion offers an excellent discussion of the current state of the law on summary judgment procedure and of the elements of a premises liability and a general negligence. For the practitioner whose case involves any of these matters this is a must-read decision in my humble opinion. 

New Tennessee Claims Commission Case: Summary Judgment for the State Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Victory v. State, No. M2020-01610-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This appeal arises from an action before the Tennessee Claims Commission for personal injuries filed on behalf of a minor child who broke her arm when she fell from playground equipment at Tims Ford State Park. The complaint asserted claims for negligence, gross negligence, and gross negligence per se. It alleged that the State was negligent by failing to adequately maintain its property, and by failing to discover, rectify, and/or warn against a dangerous condition, and allowing park visitors “to use the playground which did not have a safe surface area.” The State denied liability under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8- 307(a)(1)(C), insisting it had no notice of any dangerous condition; it also raised the “Recreational Use Statute,” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 70-7-101 to -105, as an affirmative defense. Following discovery, the State filed a motion for summary judgment, which the claims commissioner granted. The commissioner found the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on two grounds. The commissioner found that Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7- 102 of the Recreational Use Statute provided immunity to the State as a landowner against premises-liability claims and that the gross negligence exception under the statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-104(a)(1), did not apply. The commissioner also held that the claimants failed to show that notice of the alleged dangerous condition had been provided to the State, which is an essential element of the Claims Commission Act. The plaintiffs appeal one issue, asserting a genuine issue of material fact existed concerning whether the State’s failure to maintain the playground was gross negligence. We affirm the Commissioner’s decision on both grounds. 

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

NOTE: This opinion is an all-too-common reminder of the harsh effects of the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute [hereinafter Act] because it provides immunity to landowners and leaves persons who have been injured due to negligence uncompensated.  See Victory v. State, No. M2020-01610-COA-R3-CV, slip. op., passim (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2021).

This opinion also offers up a good explanation of gross negligence under the Act. Id. at 4.   

Lastly, the opinion reminds us of an important point regarding appellate practice, to wit:

     The State also argues that we should affirm the Commissioner’s decision because the Commissioner provided two independent grounds for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs appealed only one. “Tennessee law . . . provide[s] that where a trial court provides more than one separate and independent ground for its judgment and a party fails to appeal one or more of the independent grounds, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court on the ground that was not challenged on appeal.” Buckley v. Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, Inc., No. M2020-00804-COA-R10-CV, 2021 WL 2450456, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2021) (citations omitted)[, perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 14, 2021)]. 

     In addition to finding insufficient evidence of gross negligence, the Commissioner determined that Plaintiffs failed to establish an essential element of their claim under § 9- 8-307(a)(1)(C) of the Claims Commission Act because there was no evidence that the proper state official had been given notice of the playground’s condition. Plaintiff did not appeal this finding. Accordingly, we are compelled to affirm the Commissioner on this ground as well. 

Id. at 5.