New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claim as Untimely per the GTLA Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals released its opinion yesterday in Miller v. Cookeville Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. M2014-01917-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

Plaintiff filed this medical malpractice action on September 8, 2011, pursuant to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (“the TMMA”) against Cookeville Regional Medical Center, which is a governmental entity subject to the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“the GTLA”). The Medical Center filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Cunningham v. Williamson Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 405 S.W.3d 41 (Tenn. 2013), to support its assertion that Plaintiff’s suit was untimely filed because it was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the GTLA, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-305(b) (2012). Plaintiff responded contending that the Cunningham decision should be applied prospectively only, so as to preserve Plaintiff’s claim as timely. The trial court found the decision in Cunningham controlling and dismissed the complaint as untimely filed. We affirm.

(Footnote omitted.)

Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/millerf_093015.pdf

NOTE: The one-year statute of limitations is now extended by proper presuit notice sent pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-121 due to a statutory amendment, which is mentioned in this opinion.  That amendment did not apply to this case because the claim accrued before the amendment's effective date.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 20-1-119 and Venue

The Tennessee Court of Appeals released its opinion today in Barrett v. Chesney, No. W2014-01921-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This interlocutory appeal arises from a health care liability action and concerns the question of proper venue. Plaintiff filed her original lawsuit in Shelby County against the Appellants, a pathology group located in Shelby County. Appellants answered the complaint and raised, as an affirmative defense, the comparative negligence of Appellees, plaintiff‟s primary care physician and his employer, who are residents of Sumner County. Plaintiff then moved, under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-1-119, for leave to amend her complaint to add the Sumner County residents to the lawsuit. Leave was granted, and plaintiff filed an amended complaint under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01. Appellees answered the complaint and averred that venue was improper in Shelby County under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-4-101(b). Appellees asked for dismissal of the lawsuit; however, rather than dismissing the lawsuit, the Shelby County court transferred the case to Sumner County. Appellants appeal. We affirm and remand.

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Denial of Defendants' Motions to Dimiss Due to Plaintiffs' Alleged Failure to Comply with Presuit Notice Requirements, Etc., Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in Hunt v. Nair, No. E2014-01261-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This interlocutory appeal involves a health care liability action. The plaintiffs, Margie Hunt and husband, Rickey Hunt, claim that Mrs. Hunt suffered injuries proximately caused by the conduct of the defendants with respect to two surgeries. Prior to filing their complaint, the plaintiffs gave timely written notice of their claim to potential defendants. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c) (Supp. 2013). Each of the three defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Their separate motions were predicated on their assertion that the plaintiffs‟ pre-suit notice failed to comply with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, part of the Tennessee‟s Health Care Liability Act. Specifically, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization with their pre-suit notice. They also contend that the plaintiffs failed to attach to the complaint the medical authorization and also the pre-suit notice served upon the defendants. The defendant Dr. Nitin J. Rangnekar also relies upon the ground of insufficiency of service of process. The trial court denied each defendant‟s motion. On the defendants‟ further motions, the court granted them permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We likewise granted the defendants permission to file a Rule 9 appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

(Footnotes omitted.) 

Here is a link to the opinion:

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/hunt_v._nair_m.d.pdf

NOTE: This is a must-read opinion for any lawyer who handles health care liability actions in Tennessee given the fact that it discusses substantial compliance of presuit notice procedures, filing requirements, and the waiver of affirmative defenses for failing to comply with Rule 8.03, Tenn. R. Civ. P.

New Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Relating to Cases Filed in the Claims Commission, the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, and Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 20-1-119

The Tennessee Supreme Court just released its opinion in Moreno v. City of Clarksville, No. 2014-01465-CS-R11-CV (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2015), available at http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/morenorichard.opn_.pdf (last visited Sept. 20, 2015).

Justice Wade filed a dissenting opinion, which can be found at this link: Moreno v. City of Clarksville, No. 2014-01465-CS-R11-CV (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2015) (Wade, J., dissenting), available at   http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/morenorichardopn_dissent_final.pdf (last visited Sept. 20, 2015).

These are must-read opinions that discuss the interplay between sovereign immunity and comparative fault. 

Recent Tennessee Legislation Affecting Transportation Network Companies Like Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, Wingz, and Summon, Etc.

The Tennessee General Assembly recently enacted legislation that deals with what is now called a transportation network company ("TNC"). A TNC is a company like Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, Wingz, and Summon.  TNCs have become increasingly popular of late and their popularity shows no signs of waning. As a result, this legislation seemed necessary. The cite to it is as follows: Act of Apr. 22, 2015, ch. 520, 2015 Tenn. Pub. Acts 648 (enacting the Transportation Network Company Services Act, codified at T.C.A. §§ 55-12-141, 56-7-1118 & 65-15-301 to -311), available at http://share.tn.gov/sos/acts/109/pub/pc0520.pdf (last visited Aug. 20, 2015).

This legislation deals with, among other things, priority-of-coverage and amount-of-coverage issues. If you are a lawyer who has an auto tort case in Tennessee involving a TNC driver, this is must-read legislation.  

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Allowance of a Nonsuit to Cure Noncompliance with Presuit Notice Requirements Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued its opinion in Phillips v. Casey, No. E2014-01563-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This is a health care liability action. The plaintiff‟s late husband died following a bilateral tonsillectomy surgery. An autopsy determined that the cause of death was angioedema. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants exactly one year after her husband‟s death. The complaint did not comply with the pre-suit notice requirements for health care liability suits. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice and re-filed suit. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that the re-filed suit was barred. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and a subsequent motion to reconsider but granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We granted permission to appeal and now affirm the decision of the trial court.

(Footnote omitted.)

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

New Tennessee Supreme Court Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Delivery of Presuit Notices via FedEx Substantially Complies with Presuit Notice Statute

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently released its opinion in Arden v. Kozawa,No. E2013-01598-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Jun. 30, 2015).  The summary from the opinion reads as follows:

The primary issue presented is whether a health care liability case must be dismissed because the plaintiff sent the health care defendants pre-suit notice of the claim via a commercial carrier, FedEx, instead of using certified mail, return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4) (2012). The defendants did not allege they failed to receive notice or were prejudiced by the plaintiff's method of service. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that strict compliance with the manner and proof of service requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4) was required. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial compliance was sufficient to satisfy the statutory content requirements of the notice, but that the plaintiff's failure to send the notice by certified mail constituted deficient service.  We hold that the manner and proof of service prescribed by Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4) may be achieved through substantial compliance.  The defendants received notice and were not prejudiced by the manner of service.  Therefore, the use of FedEx to deliver the notice and the filing of proof of service with the complaint constituted substantial compliance with the manner and proof of service requirements of the pre-suit notice statute. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Here's a link to the opinion:

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

NOTE: This is a good decision because Tennessee has a long-established, oft-repeated policy of deciding cases on their merits and not on procedural technicalities.  I applaud the Tennessee Supreme Court for doing the right thing in this instance. 

New Laws Effective in Tennessee in 2015

Jan. 1, 2015:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/legislation/publications/1-1-2015%20effective.pdf

Jul. 1, 2015:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/legislation/publications/07-01-2015%20effective.pdf

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Case Due to a "Defective" HIPAA Authorization Overturned on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in Hughes v. Henry Cnty. Med. Ctr., No. W2014-01973-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2015).  The slip opinion states as follows:

This is a healthcare liability action, arising from alleged injuries to Appellant, Melba Hughes. Mrs. Hughes' husband, Robert Hughes, filed this action against Appellee, Henry County Medical Center (“HCMC”), and Dr. Donald Gold, who is not a party to this appeal. Appellees moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with the notice requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121. Specifically, Appellee challenged whether the medical authorization provided with the pre-suit notice letter was compliant with Tennessee Code Annotated 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). An error in the medical authorization form provided to HCMC did not permit HCMC to obtain medical records from Dr. Gold. However, Dr. Gold saw the patient only at HCMC, and he had no records independent of the hospital‟s records. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice. Mr. and Mrs. Hughes timely filed their appeal. We reverse and remand the matter to the trial court.

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Denial of Motion to Dismiss Based upon a "Defective" Certificate of Good Faith Affirmed on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued its opinion in Kerr v. Thompson, No. W2014-01973-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2015).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:

The trial court denied the defendant doctor’s motion to dismiss this medical malpractice action on the ground that the plaintiff had substantially complied with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-122, despite the fact that her certificate of good faith did not contain a statement that the executing party had no prior violations of the good faith certificate requirement. This Court granted an interlocutory appeal. While this appeal was pending, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Davis v. Ibach, No. W2013-02514-SC-R11-CV, --- S.W.3d ---, 2015 WL 3451613 (Tenn. May 29, 2015), ruling that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-122 does not require a party executing a certificate of good faith to note the absence of any prior violations of the good faith certificate requirement. Based on Davis, we conclude that plaintiff’s certificate of good faith was fully compliant with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-122. Accordingly, although we rely on different grounds, we affirm the trial court’s ruling denying the defendant doctor’s motion to dismiss.

(Emphasis in original.)

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

NOTE: This post relates to my May 29, 2015 post.

New Tennessee Supreme Court Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Ruling, Which Allowed Plaintiff to Nonsuit the Case Without Prejudice, Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued its opinion today in Davis v. Ibach, No. W2013-02514-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Mar. 29, 2015).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:

The Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against the Defendants. Following the Defendants' motions to dismiss the action, asserting that the certificate of good faith was noncompliant with the requirement in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122(d)(4) (Supp. 2008), the trial court granted the Plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss the action. The Defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the trial court. We granted review to determine whether the requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122(d)(4) that a certificate of good faith filed in a medical malpractice action disclose the number of prior violations of the statute by the executing party also requires disclosure of the absence of any prior violations of the statute. We hold that it does not. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Here's a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/davistopn_1.pdf

New Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion on Informed Consent

The Tennessee Supreme Court just issued its opinion in White v. Beeks, No. E2012-02443-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 18, 2015).  The summary from the slip opinion states as follows:

The issue in this health care informed consent case is whether the trial court erred by limiting the testimony of plaintiff patient’s expert witness regarding the risks that the defendant doctor was required to disclose to obtain the patient’s informed consent for surgery. The doctor performed a spinal fusion on the patient. His back pain initially improved, but subsequently worsened. The patient sued the doctor, claiming his back pain was caused by nerve compression due to ectopic bone growth at the site of the fusion. The patient alleged that the doctor failed to give him adequate information to enable him to give an informed consent to the surgery. In a pretrial deposition, the patient’s expert testified that to obtain informed consent, the doctor was required to advise the patient that he would use a bone-grafting protein and inform the patient about all the potential risks arising from its use, including risks that allegedly caused harm and risks that did not cause harm. The trial court granted the doctor’s motion to limit the patient’s expert witness testimony to only those risks that allegedly materialized and injured the patient. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor. In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the expert medical testimony. We hold that the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony regarding undisclosed medical risks that had not materialized. Because this error, more probably than not, influenced the jury’s verdict, the patient is awarded a new trial.

Here is a link to the opinion:

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/whitei.opn_1.pdf

NOTE: This is a must-read opinion for any lawyer who has a case with an informed-consent element that is to be decided under Tennessee law.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Case Dismissed Due to Noncompliance with Onerous and Unfair Presuit Notice Requirements

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Harmon v. Shore, No. M2014-01339-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This is a Health Care Liability case. Appellees are the treating physician and hospital. The trial court granted Appellees‟ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motions to dismiss Appellant‟s lawsuit for failure to comply with the Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) notice provision for health care liability claims. Specifically, the trial court determined that the required Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) medical authorization provided by Appellant was not substantially compliant with the statutory requirements in that the relevant medical records were released only to Appellant‟s lawyer. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

New Health Care Liability Action & Comparative Fault Opinion: Joinder of a Nonparty under Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 20-1-119

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in Swearengen v. DMC-Memphis, No. W2014-00724-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This is an appeal from the trial court‟s grant of a motion to dismiss Appellant‟s medical malpractice action[] against defendants named in Appellant‟s amended complaint filed more than one year after the cause of action accrued. The trial court found that Appellant‟s claims against the additional parties were time barred because the amended complaint adding these parties was not filed within ninety days of the original answer asserting comparative fault against non-parties. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. 

Here is a link to the opinion: 

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

NOTE: Respectfully, I think this opinion is wrongly decided,  This is because it appears to be contrary to the Tennessee Supreme Court opinion issued in the case of Brown v. Wal-Mart Discount Cities, 12 S.W.3d 785, 789 (Tenn. 2000), available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4690641893954946747&q=Brown+v.+Wal-Mart&hl=en&as_sdt=4,43 (last visited Apr. 6, 2015). Per Brown, and Rule 8.03, Tenn. R. Civ. P., it appears that a defendant must be more specific in pleading the fault of a nonparty as an affirmative defense than was allowed in this opinion.  Brown, 12 S.W.3d at 789.

New Opinion on Trial Practice in a Tort Case

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in Monypeny v. Kheiv, No. W2014-00656-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict. The case arises from a motor vehicle accident. Appellant State Farm defended the case as the original plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist carrier. The original plaintiffs subsequently died, one as a direct result of injuries sustained in the accident, the other some two years after the accident. The plaintiffs’ children were substituted as plaintiffs/appellees. State Farm appeals the judgment on the jury verdict on numerous grounds, including: (1) denial of its motion for directed verdict; (2) scope of cross-examination; (3) denial of its motion for mistrial based upon inappropriate closing argument; (4) exclusion of notations on medical records; (5) various acts of alleged wrongdoing on the part of Appellees’ attorneys; (6) jury instructions; (7) admission of medical bills for original plaintiff’s long term assisted living expenses; (8) excessive verdict; (9) incorrect application of statutory cap on non-economic damages; (10) denial of credit for medical and death payments made by State Farm under the insurance policy; and (11) award of discretionary costs. Because there is material evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm and remand.

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

NOTE: This opinion offers a good discussion for the Tennessee trial lawyer as it relates to the trial of a tort suit in this state.  It is a must-read case in my opinion.

New Wrongful Death Opinion: Disqualification of Surviving Spouse under Recent Changes to Tennessee's Wrongful Death Law

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in Baugh v. United Parcel Serv., No. M2014-00353-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

In this wrongful death appeal, the main issue is whether, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-106(c)(1), a surviving spouse must have abandoned the decedent for a period of two years to have waived his or her right to institute an action or collect proceeds under that section.  We have concluded that the two-year period in Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-106(c)(1) applies only to “willful withdrawal.”

Here's a link to the opinion:

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

NOTE: This opinion offers an analysis of the recent changes to our state's wrongful death law, which was recently amended.

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Case Refiled under Saving Statute Dismissed Because Plainitffs Did Not Resend Presuit Notices Before Filing Second Suit

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion on Potter v. Perrigan, No. E2013-01442-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

This is a medical malpractice action. Plaintiffs timely filed a complaint [] after properly sending pre-suit notices to Defendants. After voluntarily dismissing the initial complaint, Plaintiffs filed a second complaint pursuant to the saving statute with an attached certificate of good faith and a copy of the original pre-suit notices. Defendants moved to dismiss the second complaint for failure to comply with the notice requirements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a). The trial court agreed and dismissed the action.  Plaintiffs appealed. We reversed the decision of the trial court. Defendants filed an application for permission to appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the application and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its opinion in Foster v. Chiles, No. E2012-01780-SC-R11-CV, 2015 WL 343872 (Tenn. Jan. 27, 2015). Upon remand, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

(Footnote omitted.)

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

Tony Duncan Receives Highest Rating Possible from Martindale-Hubbell: AV Preeminent

I am honored and humbled to have recently received the highest rating possible from Martindale-Hubbell, which is an AV Preeminent rating.  Here is a link to my rating page: 

http://www.martindale.com/H-Anthony-Duncan/1601302-lawyer.htm?view=cr

Again, I am honored and humbled.  This is a milestone that I will always cherish.

New Health Care Liability Opinion: Plaintiffs' Failure to File Certificate of Good Faith Leads to a Dismissal of Their Case with Prejudice

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Dennis v. Smith, No. E2014-00636-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2015).  The summary from the opinion states as follows:

Linda Dennis and Creed Dennis [] filed a healthcare liability action against Dr. Robert G. Smith [] and others. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. After a hearing, the Circuit Court for Knox County [] dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims after finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiffs had failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their claims to this Court. We find and hold that because Plaintiffs failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122, their action was subject to dismissal with prejudice upon motion. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims.

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: A Spouse's Loss-of-consortium Claim and Presuit Notice

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Igou v. Vanderbilt Univ., No. M2013-02837-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2015).  This opinion has to do with a spouse's derivative loss-of-consortium claim in conjunction with a health care liability action.  The summary from the opinion states as follows: 

This appeal asks whether a wife‘s loss of consortium claim, brought pursuant to her husband‘s underlying health care liability action, is itself a health care liability action subject to the pre-suit notice provision of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. The trial court granted the hospital‘s motion to dismiss, finding that the wife‘s claim was a health care liability action under the Act and that she had failed to comply with the pre-suit notice provision. As an alternative ground for dismissal, the court also found that the wife had failed to file suit within the statute of limitation. We vacate the trial court‘s order of dismissal with prejudice and remand.

Here is a link to the opinion:

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