Tennessee Supreme Court Holds that Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act Applies to Medical Battery and Intentional Misrepresentation Claims Against Health Care Providers for Injuries Arising from Surgical Procedures

The Tennessee Supreme Court has released its opinion in Copper v. Mandy, No. M2019-01748-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Jan. 20, 2022). The syllabus form the slip opinion reads:

The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Health Care Liability Act, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-101 to -122, applies to medical battery and intentional misrepresentation claims against health care providers for injuries arising from a surgical procedure. The defendant doctor told the plaintiff he was an experienced board-certified plastic surgeon, and the plaintiff consented to surgery. But the doctor was not a board-certified plastic surgeon, and the surgery did not go well. The plaintiff and her husband sued the doctor and his medical practice for her injuries, alleging medical battery and intentional misrepresentation. The defendants moved to dismiss because the plaintiffs had not complied with the pre-suit notice and filing requirements of the Health Care Liability Act. The plaintiffs, conceding their noncompliance, argued the Act did not apply to their medical battery and intentional misrepresentation claims. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that the defendants’ misrepresentations were made before any health care services were rendered and thus did not relate to the provision of health care services. On interlocutory review, the Court of Appeals affirmed. We reverse and hold that the Health Care Liability Act applies to the plaintiffs’ claims. The Act broadly defines a “health care liability action” to include claims alleging that a health care provider caused an injury that related to the provision of health care services, regardless of the theory of liability. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the plaintiffs’ medical battery and intentional misrepresentation claims fall within the definition of a “health care liability action” under the Act. We remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Here is a link to the opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/majority_opinion_-_sct_1-20-2022.pdf.

NOTE: This decision is a reminder of how broad the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act is; this decision is also a cautionary tale that must be read by any lawyer who handles health care liability actions under Tennessee law.  

This post relates to my December 15, 2020-post that can be found at this link: 

http://theduncanlawfirm.blogspot.com/2020/12/new-health-care-liability-action_15.html.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Case Upheld on Appeal Because Defendant-physician's Employer Not Added as a Party-defendant as Required by Statute

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Braylon W. v. Walker, No. W2020-00692-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2021).  The syllabus reads:

This appeal stems from a dismissal pursuant to Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act [(GTLA)]. Suit was filed against Appellant’s treating physician, among other defendants, for health care liability involving Appellant’s birth. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the physician, finding that, because the physician was an employee of a governmental entity at the time of the incident, Appellant was required by statute to name the physician’s employing governmental entity as a party defendant. Because Appellant failed to do so, the lawsuit against the treating physician could not proceed. Appellant now appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Here is a link to the opinion: 

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

NOTE: This case is one that used to be called a "medical malpractice case," but is now called a "health care liability action" by statute; that change was effected by Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-101.  

This case accentuates the importance of naming a defendant "health care practitioner's" employer as a party-defendant if the case is a health care liability action that falls under the GTLA; failing to do that is generally fatal to the case, as pointed out here.  Plaintiff, however, could have added Dr. Walker's employer as a party-defendant under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 (commonly referred to as the "comparative fault joinder statute" or just "-119") after her answer was filed indicating who her employer was at the time of the complained of negligence.  Bidwell ex rel. Bidwell v. Strait, 618 S.W.3d 309, 323–29 (Tenn. 2021) (explaining how -119 can be used to add a defendant's employer in a health care liability action covered by the GTLA), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12106812184700824746&q=618+S.W.3d+309&hl=en&as_sdt=4,43.  I am not sure what that was not done here.