New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Ruling Allowing Plaintiffs to Obtain Surveillance Videos Taken by Defense of a Plaintiff Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Locke v. Aston, No. M2022-01820-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2023). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is a health care liability action filed by a patient and her husband alleging serious injury as a result of surgery. The plaintiffs learned that the defendants had taken surveillance videos and sought discovery of those videos. The trial court allowed discovery of only the videos that the defendants intended to use at trial for impeachment purposes. The trial court gave the plaintiffs permission to seek an appeal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 9. This Court granted the appeal. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

Here is a link to the opinion: Majority Opinion - M2022-01820-COA-R9-CV.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: While this is a health care liability action (f/k/a a medical malpractice case), this opinion offers a much-needed discussion of the discoverability of surveillance video taken in conjunction with a Tennessee state court lawsuit. This is one every lawyer who practices civil law in Tennessee must read. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Grant of Summary Judgment to the Defense Reversed on Appeal Because There Are Genuine Issues of Material Fact as to When This Cause of Action Accrued, the Propriety of the Presuit Notice, and Causation and Damages

The Tennessee Court of Appeals released its opinion in Vilas v. Love, No. W2022-01071-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2023). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this health care liability action, the trial court granted summary judgment to the appellee surgeon based on the expiration of the statute of limitations and the appellant patient’s failure to show evidence of causation and damages. On appeal, we conclude that (1) there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to when the appellant’s cause of action accrued; (2) the trial court did not specifically rule on the propriety of appellant’s pre-suit notice; and (3) there are genuine disputes of material facts as to the causation and damages elements of the appellant’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. 

Here is a link to the opinion: VilasJamesMiguelOPN.pdf (tncourts.gov).

NOTE: This is a great read because it offers excellent analysis of accrual of claims, presuit notice, and causation and damages in health care liability actions (f/k/a medical malpractice cases). 

Two New SCOTN Health Care Liability Action Opinions: Court of Appeals' Reversal of Trial Court's Dismissal of Vicarious Liability Claims Against the Principals Upheld on Appeal Due to Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act's Abrogation of the Common Law's Operation-of-law Exception

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued its opinions in Ultsch v. HTI Memorial Hosp. Corp., No. M2020-00341-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. July 20, 2023) and Gardner v. Saint Thomas Midtown Hosp., No. M2019-02237-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. July 20, 2023). The syllabus from the majority slip opinions in Ultsch reads:

“When there is a conflict between the common law and a statute, the provision of the statute must prevail.” Graves v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 148 S.W. 239, 242 (Tenn. 1912). That longstanding rule is the key to resolving this case, which pits a common-law rule governing vicarious liability claims against certain procedural provisions of Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act. The defendant in this case moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under the common-law rule. The trial court granted that motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed after concluding that application of the common-law rule would conflict with the Act. We agree that the Act necessarily implies an intent to abrogate the common-law rule in the circumstances of this case and affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Ultsch, No. M2020-00341-SC-R11-CV, slip. op. at 1. 

The syllabus from Gardner reads the same. No. M2019-02237-SC-R11-CV, slip op. at 1. 

Here is the majority opinion in Ultsch: 

691fd502-7aa9-486c-a1b9-97092d595eb0.pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justice Lee's opinion that concurs and dissents in part:  

ULTSCH-Separate Concur Opinion (J.Lee).pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justices Page and Bivins's dissent: 

ULTSCH-Separate Dissent Opinion (J.Bivins).pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is the majority opinion in Gardner: 

54eb201c-81d3-4f47-b239-aa6a1bdee20b.pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justice Lee's opinion that concurs and dissents in part: 

GARDNER - Separate CONCUR IN PART Opinion (J.Lee).pdf (tncourts.gov)

Here is Justices Page and Bivins's dissent: 

GARDNER-Separate DISSENT Opinion (J.Bivins).pdf (tncourts.gov)

NOTE: These two decisions must be read by any lawyer who handles health care liability actions (f/k/a medical malpractice cases) governed by Tennessee substantive law because they will affect nearly every case of that sort, etc.