New Tennessee Health Care Liability Action Opinion: SCOTN Holds Common Knowledge Exception Applies in Case Involving a Massage Therapist

The Tennessee Supreme Court released its opinion Friday in Jackson v. Burrell, No. W2018-00057-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. June 12, 2020).  The syllabus form the slip opinion reads:

The question presented in this health care liability case is whether the plaintiff’s claim against a salon for negligent training, supervision, and retention of a massage therapist should be dismissed because the plaintiff did not file a certificate of good faith with her complaint under section 29-26-122 of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act . . . . Our answer depends on whether the common knowledge exception applies—that is, whether laypersons using their common knowledge and without expert testimony could decide whether the salon was negligent. If the common knowledge exception does not come into play and expert testimony is necessary, then the plaintiff needed to file a certificate of good faith with her complaint certifying that her negligence claim was supported by a competent expert witness and that there was a good faith basis for the claim. Here, the plaintiff alleged that a massage therapist working for the salon sexually assaulted her during a massage. In support of her claim of negligent training, supervision, and retention, the plaintiff presented evidence that before her assault, the salon had received complaints from two customers that the massage therapist had acted inappropriately and made them feel uncomfortable. The trial court granted summary judgment to the salon because the plaintiff had not filed a certificate of good faith. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the plaintiff had waived the common knowledge exception and that, in any event, expert testimony was necessary. We reverse and hold that 1) the plaintiff did not waive the common knowledge exception; and 2) the plaintiff’s claim against the salon for negligent training, supervision, and retention of the massage therapist was within the common knowledge of laypersons and did not require expert testimony about the standard of care in the massage industry. Thus, the plaintiff did not have to present expert proof to establish her negligence claim against the salon. It follows then that the plaintiff had no reason to file a certificate of good faith under section 29-26- 122, and her claim is not subject to dismissal for noncompliance with this section. The trial court’s award of summary judgment is vacated.

Here is a link to that opinion:

 http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/jackson.majopn.pdf

NOTE: This opinion reaches a fair result under the law (which is similar in a number of other states as well) regarding the common knowledge exception to the general requirement of expert testimony to prove both negligence and causation in a health care liability action under Tennessee law (formerly known as a medical malpractice case).  This is a must-read case for any lawyer who handles health care liability actions controlled by Tennessee law.  

Two important takeaways from reading this opinion: first, presuit notice letters must still be served in a health care liability action where the common knowledge exception applies, see Jackson, slip op. at 9; and, second, no certificate of good faith is required to be filed with the complaint under Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-16-122 when this exception is applicable, id. at 9–11.  

For what it is worth, the "classic" example of a health care liability action where the common knowledge exception applies is when a sponge is left in a patient after surgery.  I had one of those "classic" cases a few years back.  Tony Duncan,  Medical Malpractice: Grant of Summary Judgment for the Defense Reversed Due to the Common Knowledge Exception, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Etc., TONY DUNCAN L. BLOG (Aug. 17, 2010, 12:29 PM), http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2010/08/medical-malpractice-grant-of-summary.html.

New Tennessee Health Care Liability Action Opinion: The Seller-shield Defense Found in the Tennessee Products Liability Act Inapplicable to Claims Made under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Heaton v. Mathes, No. E2019-00493-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).  The slip opinion reads:

The plaintiffs filed a health care liability action against a pharmacy and other medical defendants, claiming, inter alia, that the defendants failed to provide proper patient counseling and failed to warn of the risks associated with a prescription drug. The pharmacy defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the gravamen of the complaint against them was a products liability action rather than a health care liability action. The defendants further asserted that the “seller shield” defense found within the Tennessee Products Liability Act provided them with immunity from liability. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint stated a health care liability action rather than a products liability action. The trial court subsequently granted the defendants’ motion for permission to seek interlocutory appeal regarding whether the seller shield defense contained within the Tennessee Products Liability Act could be asserted when the plaintiffs’ claim is made pursuant to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. Following our thorough consideration of the issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, determining that the seller shield defense found in the Tennessee Products Liability Act is inapplicable to claims made under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. 

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/heaton_v._mathes_e2019-00493.pdf.

NOTE: This case offers a good analysis of the interplay between health care liability actions and product liability actions under Tennessee law.  A must-read opinion if you handle either type of case.

New Case on Voluntary Dismissals ("Nonsuits") under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Lemonte v. Lemonte,No. 63CC1-2018-CV-154 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2019).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

The day before a hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution was held, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing the following day. As such, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice. We reverse and remand for the entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/lemonte.ronald.opn_.pdf

NOTE: This is a great opinion and a must-read one for any lawyer who practices in the State of Tennessee's courts.  It's a good reminder that, absent few exceptions, a plaintiff has a right to take a voluntary dismissal (a "nonsuit") in civil actions in Tennessee.  No motion seeking leave to nonsuit needs to be filed as I have seen done in some cases; only a notice need be filed.  An order can be submitted later; and the one year to refile under the saving statute runs from the entry of that order.  Tenn. R. Civ. 41.01(3). 

Further, even if a motion for summary judgment is pending, which is one of the exceptions to having a right to take nonsuit, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice can still be taken with court permission.  Stewart v. Univ. of Tenn., 519 S.W.2d 591, 592–94 (Tenn. 1974).

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Refiled Case Time-barred Because Prior Case That Was Nonsuited Was Untimely Filed

The Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued its opinion in Dortch v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosp., No. W2017-01121-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2018).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads as follows:

This is a health care liability case. Appellant/Plaintiff first filed suit against Appellees/Defendants for medical malpractice in April 2014. Defendants filed motions to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements for health care liability claims. Before the trial court could hear Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit, and an order was entered thereon. Plaintiff subsequently re-filed her case against Defendants in September 2016 in reliance on the one year savings statute. Defendants moved the court to dismiss Plaintiff’s suit based on the statute of limitations. The trial court granted Defendants’ motions and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, holding that, because Plaintiff’s original presuit notice was defective, her first complaint was untimely and she could not rely on the savings statute to revive a time-barred cause of action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

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

NOTE: This case is a reminder of two things: first, a case can only be filed under the saving statute if it was timely filed before it was nonsuited; and, second, health care liability actions are very difficult to prosecute.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued its opinion in Youngblood ex rel. Estate of Vaughn v. River Park Hospital, LLC, No. M2016-02311-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017).  The syllabus from the slip opinion states as follows:

On July 11, 2015, Daniel Vaughn, an 86-year-old patient, was recovering from surgery in the intensive care unit of the defendant River Park Hospital. A nurse brought Mr. Vaughn some coffee, after which she left the room. He spilled the coffee on himself, suffering burns to his body. Nancy Youngblood, the executor of Mr. Vaughn’s estate, brought this action alleging that, given his condition, he “should not have been left alone to manage an extremely hot beverage.” River Park, arguing that her claim is a health care liability action subject to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101 et seq. (2012 & Supp. 2017), moved to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to provide pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith as required by the THCLA. Plaintiff argued that her claim does not fall within the definition of a “health care liability action.” The trial court disagreed and dismissed her action. We hold that the trial court correctly held her claim to be a health care liability complaint. Accordingly, we affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/youngblood.nancy_.opn_.pdf

NOTE: This case evinces just how broad the definition of "health care liability action" is under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-101(a)(1).  Presuit notice should have been set here under section 29-26-121 in my humble opinion.

New Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion: Seller of Automated External Defibrillator Granted Summary Judgment on Appeal

The Tennessee Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Wallis v. Brainerd Baptist Church, No. E2015-01827-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Dec. 22, 2016).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:

The plaintiff‟s husband collapsed and died after participating in a cycling class at a fitness and recreation facility owned and operated by the church. Although the cycling class instructor and others present at the fitness facility attended the plaintiff's husband and called 911 soon after his collapse, they did not utilize the automated external defibrillator (“AED”) on site at the facility. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the church, alleging, among other things, that the church had negligently failed to utilize the onsite AED, to train facility personnel on the proper use of the AED, and to comply with applicable state statutes. The church denied negligence and subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the company that sold it the AED, asserting that the seller had contractually agreed to provide a physician oversight program, which, among other things, included oversight of the church's compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. The church alleged that, should the plaintiff recover a judgment against it for failing to comply with statutes, the seller should be solely responsible for the judgment. The plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint naming the seller as a defendant and alleging, as relevant to this interlocutory appeal, that: (1) the seller had negligently breached a duty it owed to her husband and others using the fitness facility to properly maintain the AEDs, to ensure that they were accessible, and to ensure that the church's employees had the knowledge, training, and ability to operate the AEDs; (2) the seller had breached its contract with the church; (3) her husband was a third-party beneficiary of the contract; and (4) the seller's negligence and breaches of contract caused her husband's death, entitling her to recover against the seller on her wrongful death and loss of consortium claims.

The seller moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff and the church, arguing that: (1) it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff or her husband; (2) the church had no common law or statutory duty to acquire or use an AED; (3) neither the plaintiff nor her husband were third-party beneficiaries of the seller's contract with the church; (4) the undisputed facts established that the seller had not breached its contract with the church; and (5) the undisputed facts failed to establish that any of the alleged breaches of contract caused the plaintiff‟s husband's death. The trial court denied the seller's motion for summary judgment, concluding that disputes of material fact remained, but it granted the seller permission to seek an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the seller's application for an interlocutory appeal, but this Court granted the seller permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We conclude that the seller did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff's husband or other users of the fitness facility independent of its contract with the church and that the church had no statutory or common law duty to acquire or use the AED it purchased from the seller, and as a result, the plaintiff's husband was not a third-party beneficiary of the church's contract with the seller. For these reasons, the seller is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's second amended complaint and the church's third-party complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of the seller on all claims and for any other necessary and appropriate proceedings consistent with this decision.

Here is a link to the slip opinion: http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/wallissopn.pdf.

NOTE: In addition to the discussion on the law surrounding the seller of an AED's liability in Tennessee, this opinion sheds further light on the post-Rye summary judgment standard in our state, which makes it a must-read for that fact alone.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: 120-day Extension to Statute of Limitations Applies to Governmental Entities

The Eastern Section of the Tennessee Court of Appeals released its opinion last week in Harper v. Bradley Cnty., No. E2014-00107-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2014).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:

The issue presented on this appeal is whether a plaintiff who brings a health care liability action against a governmental entity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“the GTLA”) is entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations provided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c)(Supp. 2014) under the current version of the Health Care Liability Act (“the HCLA”). This inquiry focuses on the effect of the 2011 amendment to the HCLA that expressly includes “claims against the state or a political subdivision thereof” within the definition of “health care liability action.” Applying the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Cunningham v. Williamson Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 405 S.W.3d 41 (Tenn. 2013), we hold that the 2011 amendment demonstrates a clear intent on the part of the General Assembly to allow the GTLA’s one-year statute of limitations to be extended by 120 days in cases where a plaintiff satisfies the requirements of the HCLA. We affirm the judgment of the trial court denying defendant Bradley County’s motion to dismiss.

(Emphasis and italics in original.)

Here is a link to the opinion:

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/harpersopncorr_0.pdf.

NOTE: This post should be read with my May 9, 2013 post discussing the Cunningham case cited in the summary above (with its footnotes foreshadowing this decision).  Here is a link to that post: 

http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2013/05/medical-malpractice-nka-health-care.html.

Further, this is a must-read opinion for any lawyer who handles health care liability cases (f.k.a. medical malpractice cases).  If this case is taken up by the Tennessee Supreme Court, which is very likely, the Court will more than likely affirm the trial court as the lower appellate court did.  It is the correct decision in my humble opinion.

Lastly, it would be a safe assumption for one to think that the three-year statute of repose would be extended by 120 days via the 2011 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-101, too. Compare Harper, supra, with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(c).  However, I am not aware of any case holding that way at this time.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court Erred in Excluding One of Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses; Error, However, Was Harmless under the Circumstances

The Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its opinion today in Evans v. Williams, No. W2013-02051-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2014).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This is a health care liability action appeal.[]  The case was tried before a jury, resulting in a judgment for the defendant physicians. The trial court excluded the testimony of one of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses on the applicable standard of care after finding that he was not qualified under the locality rule. The plaintiff appealed to this Court arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in its application of the locality rule. We hold that it was error for the trial court to exclude the witness, but find that any error was harmless under the facts of this case. We therefore affirm.

(Footnote omitted.)

Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/evansb_063014.pdf