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. 

New Laws Effective in Tennessee on January 1 and July 1, 2023

To wit:

January 1:     EffectiveRpt (tn.gov).

July 1:            EffectiveRpt (tn.gov)

NOTE: These abstracts are great ways to stay current on Tennessee law. 

Trial Court's Dismissal of Pro Se Legal Malpractice Claim as Being Barred by the Statute of Limitations Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Supreme Court has released its opinion in Garrett v. Weiss, No. E2022-01373-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 25, 2023). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

The pro se plaintiff appeals the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of his legal malpractice action against his attorney and the attorney’s law firm. The trial court found that the action was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Because the plaintiff’s action accrued more than one year before he filed the lawsuit, we affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion: Bradley Garrett v William Weiss.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This opinion addresses the standard of review for summary judgment when the movant has the burden of proof on the issue at trial (here, the defendant as to a defense based on the statute of limitations); accrual of legal malpractice actions under the discovery rule, and waiver of issues on appeal. This is a good read in my humble opinion because of these topics. 

New Case on Malicious Prosecution: Plaintiffs' Malicious Prosecution Claim Did Not Accrue Until Defendant's Time to File a Brief on Appeal Expired

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its decision in Cordova v. Martin, No. M2021-01412-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2023). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is an action for malicious prosecution of an attorney’s fee claim. The plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the defendant under the oneyear statute of limitations in Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-104(a)(1). The court held that the plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued when the allegedly-malicious prosecution terminated, and it held that the prosecution terminated when the first court denied the defendant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04. The plaintiffs contend that this is wrong because the defendant was a party to and participated in the appeal of those proceedings. They assert that the defendant’s action did not terminate until he exhausted his appellate remedies. We agree and hold that the defendant’s cause of action did not terminate until his time for filing an appellate brief expired. Thus, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with instructions to reinstate the complaint and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: Majority Opinion M2021-01412-COA-R3-CV.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This opinion does a good job of explaining the accrual of these types of claims; it is a good read. 

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. 

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: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/jefferson_howell_v._chattanooga_hamilton_county_hospital.pdf.

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.

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 Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Denial of Defense's Motion to Dismiss Based on a Finding of "Excusable Neglect" Reversed on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Moxley v. Amisub SFH, Inc., No. W2021-01422-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2022). The syllabus reads:

In this interlocutory appeal of a health care liability action, the only issue for review is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss based on its finding that “extraordinary cause” existed to excuse the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the statutory pre-suit notice requirem)nts. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: 

 https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/moxleyeugeneopn.pdf.

NOTE: There is subsequent history to this case. Moxley v. Amisub SFH, Inc., No. W2023-00220-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2024). This latest opinion has been designated as a "MEMORANDUM OPINION" and "shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case." Id., slip op. at 2, fn. 1. Despite that designation, it still sheds light on the history of Moxley.