New Health Care Liability Action: Denial of Summary Judgment to Defense Reversed on Appeal Because Certificate of Good Faith Was Not Properly Presented

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Estate of Blankenship v. Bradley Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center,  No. E2021-00714-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2022). The syllabus reads:

In this health[]care liability action, a decedent’s estate and her son sued a nursing home and the county that owned the nursing home, alleging that the nursing home was negligent in the care of the decedent. The nursing home and the county filed a motion to dismiss [(which was converted to a motion for summary judgment because matters outside the pleadings were considered)] the case for failure to comply with the certificate of good faith filing requirement in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122. The trial court denied the motion, finding that an exhibit attached to the complaint satisfied the certificate of good faith filing requirement. Because the exhibit did not contain all of the information required for a certificate of good faith, we reverse and remand.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/estate_of_beulah_blankenship_et_al._v._bradley_healthcare_and_rehabilitation_center_et_al..pdf .

NOTE: This is a must-read decision for anyone who is involved with medical malpractice cases (n/k/a health care liability actions) governed by Tennessee substantive law because it offers up a good discussions of certificates of good faith that are required under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122 in these types of cases.

Summary Judgment for Defense Reversed on Appeal Because Trial Court Failed to Support and Explain Its Reasoning in Its Order

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Smith v. Walker, No. W2021-00241-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2022). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

Appellants purchased a home from Appellee that was contaminated with mold. Appellants therefore filed suit against Appellee. The trial court granted summary judgment in Appellee’s favor. Because the trial court’s order does not comply with Rule 56.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure or Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., we vacate and remand.

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

NOTE: While this is a memorandum opinion and cannot be cited by others as authority, Smith v. Walker, No. W2021-00241-COA-R3-CV, slip op. at 1, n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2022) (citing Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10), the authorities therein can be cited by others. Further, this opinion (and the authorities it cites) is instructive and a must read for anyone who is involved with a motion for summary judgment in a Tennessee state court.  

Constitutionality of a Metro. Davidson County (Tenn.) Ordinance and the Presumption Thereunder Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has upheld the presumption under Section 12.68.180 of The Code of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn. in Metro. Gove't of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn. v. Gelle, No. M2020-01360-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2022). The syllabus from the majority slip opinion reads:

The defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment finding that he violated a reckless driving city ordinance, Metropolitan Code . . . § 12.68.180, when he drove 65 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone. During trial, Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee [] presented evidence regarding the defendant’s speed to support its allegation that the defendant was driving recklessly. Following proof of the defendant’s excessive speed, the trial court found that the defendant had failed to rebut the presumption created by ordinance that he was driving in such a way as to demonstrate “a wilful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” The defendant challenges the constitutionality of such ordinance, which provides a rebuttable presumption that the defendant was driving recklessly when driving at least fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit. However, the defendant’s issues concerning constitutionality of the ordinance were not properly raised or decided by the trial court, and upon our determination that the ordinance is not facially unconstitutional, we hold that the defendant has waived his issues regarding the constitutionality of the ordinance. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment that the defendant violated Metropolitan Code . . . § 12.68.180.

Here is a link to the majority slip opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/abdiqani.gelle_.opn_.pdf.

Here is a link to Judge McClarty's dissent: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/abdiqani.gelle_.separateopn.pdf.

Here's a link the Metro Code: 

https://library.municode.com/tn/metro_government_of_nashville_and_davidson_county/codes/code_of_ordinances.

NOTE: Judge McClarty makes some very good points here in the dissent.  Because of that, I would not be surprised if the Tennessee Supreme Court doesn't take this one up on appeal.

Trial Court's Grant of Motion to Dismiss Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Mack v. Cable Equipment Services, Inc., No. W2020-00862-COA-R3-CV (Feb. 9, 2022). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This appeal arises from litigation involving an incident that occurred in 2010. Suit was originally filed in 2011. After a voluntary nonsuit, the complaint was refiled in 2014. Years later, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add additional defendants. The trial court granted leave to amend but reserved ruling on whether the claims against the new parties would relate back to the date of the original complaint under the provisions of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03. The amended complaint was filed in 2018. The newly added defendants moved to dismiss on the basis that none of the elements required for relation back under Rule 15.03 had been shown to exist. After a hearing, the trial judge agreed and provided an oral ruling in favor of the defendants. Before a written order was entered to that effect, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit without prejudice. The trial court subsequently entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The trial court found that at that point in the proceeding, the allowance of a nonsuit was discretionary, and permitting a nonsuit after its oral ruling would have been unfairly prejudicial to the defendants. As such, it granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the basis that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and did not relate back to the filing of the original or refiled complaint. The plaintiffs filed motions to alter or amend or set aside the order, arguing that the trial court lost jurisdiction at the moment the plaintiffs filed their notice of nonsuit, and therefore, the order of dismissal was void. They also argued that the trial court impermissibly relied on facts that were not found within the amended complaint in resolving the motion to dismiss. The trial court denied both motions. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion: 

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

NOTE:  There is a lot going on in this opinion. It deals with whether an amendment adding defendants relates back for purposes of defeating a defense based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, how motions to dismiss should be handled by trial courts, etc. This opinion also addresses the waiver of issues on appeal due to an appellant's failure to properly present them on appeal as required by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure (the acronym being "T.R.A.P." for a reason). This is a must-read opinion for any lawyer who practices in Tennessee state courts.  

Judgment of Dismissal in a Health Care Liability Action in Tennessee Claims Commission Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its decision in Cavaliere v. State, No. M2021-00038-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2022). The slip opinion reads:

This appeal arises from proceedings in the Tennessee Claims Commission and follows a trial concerning care received by the decedent while at the Tennessee State Veterans Home. The Claims Commission ultimately found that the claimants had failed to establish a health care liability claim and therefore dismissed the case. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.

Here is a link to the opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/wanda.cavaliere.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: This decision emphasizes just how difficult health care liability actions (f/k/a/ medical malpractice cases) are in Tennessee—especially in the Claims Commission. In addition to the normal issues that arise in these types of cases, this one involves waiver of issues on appeal due to counsel's failure to follow the appellate rules. This decision also offers a good explanation of the standard of review on appeal from Claims Commission cases. This one is worth reading in my humble opinion.  

Summary Judgment for One Defendant Reversed on Appeal Because a Duty Existed Due to Pigs Running at Large

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its decision in Cook v. Fuqua, No. M2021-00107-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

A woman sued a homeowner for negligence due to injuries she sustained when a potbellied pig maintained on the homeowner’s property jumped on her and knocked her off of the homeowner’s front porch. The homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that he did not owe the woman a duty of reasonable care because she was a trespasser. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, and the woman appealed. Determining that genuine issues of material fact still exist because the homeowner failed to establish that the woman was a trespasser, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.

Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/eltricia.cook_.opn_.pdf. 

NOTE: This is a very good read for anyone interested in the elements of negligence and summary judgment practice.  

Summary Judgment for the Defense Upheld on Appeal to Property Owner After Minor Was Injured by Felled Power Lines on the Property

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Kelly v. Debre Keranio Medhanialem Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, No. M2019-02238-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2022). The syllabus form the slip opinion reads:

Parents sued a property owner after their child, while playing on the property, received an electrical shock from a downed [4,000-volt] power line. The property owner moved for summary judgment. Based on the undisputed facts, the trial court determined that the property owner was essentially a landlord and had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the downed power line. So the court dismissed the parents’ claims against the property owner. On appeal, the parents argue that the property owner was a co-possessor of the portion of the property where the child was injured rather than a landlord. And, as a result, they contend that the property owner owed a duty to inspect the property to discover dangerous conditions such as the downed power line. At the very least, they contend that the question of constructive notice was for the jury. We affirm the grant of summary judgment. 

Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/roy.kelly_._opn.pdf,

NOTE: This opinion offers a good analysis of premises liability claims and summary judgment practice under Tennessee substantive law. (While I am not familiar with all the facts of this case, I wonder if a theory of recovery based on inherently dangerous activity (coupled with in loco parentis) should have been pursued, too; I am just not sure.) 

Trial Court's Dismissal of Personal Injury Action as Time-barred (Because It Purportedly Did Not Fit Within the One-year Extension under Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 28-3-104(a)(2)) Overturned on Appeal Because the Court Below Failed to Support Its Ruling in a Way that Facilitated Appellate Review

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Peterson v. Carey, No. E2021-00430-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2021). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This negligence case arises from a one-car accident in which the Plaintiff Jason M. Peterson, a passenger in a car driven by Defendant Jodi L. Carey, was injured. Plaintiff filed his complaint more than one year after he was injured. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the one-year statute of limitations for personal injuries, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(1)(A), had run and the case was untimely filed. Plaintiff argued that because Defendant was given a citation for failure to exercise due care, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3- 104(a)(2), which provides for a two-year limitations period if “[c]riminal charges are brought against any person alleged to have caused or contributed to the injury,” applies. Defendant responded that because the police issued her citation under the Kingsport Municipal Code, the total fine was fifty dollars, a penalty that was civil and not criminal in nature. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s action with prejudice, holding it was filed too late. Because no evidence of the citation was presented to the trial court, and there is no indication in the trial court’s final judgment that it considered the arguments regarding the citation, we vacate and remand for the trial court to consider the evidence and rule on the issue presented.

Here is the link to the opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/e2021-00430_peterson_v._carey.pdf.

NOTE: Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 28-3-104(a) was amended in 2015 to extend Tennessee's one-year personal injury statute of limitations by one year if criminally charged conduct was involved. How this new part of that statute will be interpreted by the courts is still a novel concept that one who deals with personal injury actions governed by Tennessee substantive law would be wise to follow. This case is one to follow because it will surely be back before the Tennessee Court of Appeals soon.  My two cents' worth.   

Tennessee Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court's Grant of Summary Judgment to the Defense Because the Trial Court Did Not Support Its Ruling as Required by Applicable Law

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released its decision in Boyd v. Gibson, No. W2020-01305-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2022).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is a lawsuit that challenges the appropriateness of care received by a cancer patient. Plaintiff originally filed suit in January 2018 and asserted a number of claims, some of which were predicated on alleged conduct occurring as early as August 2014. In an amended complaint, Plaintiff expanded her allegations, taking issue with conduct occurring as late as September 2016. The trial court ultimately dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in toto as it concerned the Defendants at issue in this appeal. Due to a lack of clarity regarding the court’s specific bases for dismissal with respect to each of the claims involved, we vacate the judgment and remand for further consideration and findings. 

Here is a link to the opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/boydlisaopn1.pdf.

NOTE: This case offers a great analysis of what a trial court must do in granting summary judgment (in a health care liability action (f/k/a medical malpractice case)). This is a must-read decision for any lawyer dealing with summary judgment under Tennessee substantive law.    

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.

Tennessee Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Spouse's Loss of Consortium Claim in the Claims Commission Because Notice of It Was Not Submitted Before Complaint Was Filed as Required by Statute

The Tennessee Supreme Court has released its opinion in Kampmeyer v. State, No. M2019-01196-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Jan. 13, 2022).  The slip opinion reads:

This case involves claims against the State of Tennessee asserted by a husband and wife. The claimant husband suffered injuries when his car collided with a Tennessee state vehicle parked in the roadway. He gave written notice of his claim to the Tennessee Division of Claims and Risk Management. The Division did not resolve it, so the Division transferred the claim to the Tennessee Claims Commission. The husband and wife then filed a complaint with the Claims Commission. The complaint contained a loss of consortium claim by the wife that was not in the written notice the husband gave to the Division of Claims and Risk Management. The Claims Commission complaint was filed within the applicable one-year statute of limitations. The Claims Commission granted the State’s motion to dismiss the wife’s loss of consortium claim as time-barred because she did not give the Division of Claims and Risk Management written notice of her claim within the limitations period. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The claimants appeal, relying on the holding in Hunter v. State, No. 01-A-01-9210-BC00425, 1993 WL 133240 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 1993), that a complaint filed with the Claims Commission within the statute of limitations fulfills the requirement in Tennessee Code Annotated § 9-8-402(a)(1) that claimants give timely written notice of their claim against the State to the Division of Claims and Risk Management. We reject this argument, overrule Hunter v. State, and affirm the Claims Commission’s dismissal of the wife’s claim for loss of consortium

Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/majority_opinion_14.pdf.

NOTE: This decision offers a good reminder of the importance of properly presenting a claim to the Tennessee Division of Claims and Risk Management when it comes to a spouse's loss of consortium claim.  Although such a claim is derivative of the injured spouse's claim, it must still be presented for presuit review just like the injured spouse's personal injury claim; if it is not, it will be subject to dismissal due to failure to comply with the statute,  

Trial Court's Grant of Summary Judgment to Defense Upheld on Appeal Due to Plaintiff's Counsel's Lack of Due Diligence in Suing the Correct Entity in a Timely Fashion

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Bodine v. Long John Silver's, LLC, No. M2021-00168-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2022). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is a lawsuit that challenges the appropriateness of care received by a cancer patient. Plaintiff originally filed suit in January 2018 and asserted a number of claims, some of which were predicated on alleged conduct occurring as early as August 2014. In an amended complaint, Plaintiff expanded her allegations, taking issue with conduct occurring as late as September 2016. The trial court ultimately dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in toto as it concerned the Defendants at issue in this appeal. Due to a lack of clarity regarding the court’s specific bases for dismissal with respect to each of the claims involved, we vacate the judgment and remand for further consideration and findings.

 Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/bonnie.bodine.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: There is a lot going on in this opinion. However, this is a must-read decision for any lawyer who seeks to amend a complaint to bring someone in as a party-defendant under Rule 15.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure after the statute of limitations has run. Read it as a cautionary tale.    

Summary Judgment for Defense in a Premises Liability Case Reversed on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Biggs v. Town of Nolensville, No. M2021-00397-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 5. 2022).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is an appeal from a governmental tort liability [act (GTLA)] case in which the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant governmental entity on the basis that it retained its immunity. Plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that the trial court failed to consider their expert affidavit. On appeal, we reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Here is a link to that opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/biggs.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: This is the correct decision; not sure why the trial court granted summary judgment in this one.  This opinion offers a good analysis of summary judgment along with premises liability in a GTLA case.  It is a must-read opinion for anyone handling this kind of case.  

 

Trial Court's Finding that No Underinsured Coverage Was Available to Plaintiff Is Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued released its opinion in Hughes v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. E2020-00225-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

The driver of a vehicle covered by a general automobile liability policy notified the insurance carrier of a potential uninsured motorist [(UM)] claim. The insurance carrier responded that the named insured had rejected in writing uninsured motorist coverage for vehicles in use in Tennessee. The driver claimed that the prior rejection was no longer effective because the named insured had submitted a new application during the renewal process. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the policy did not include uninsured motorist coverage. We conclude that the prior written rejection remained in effect when the policy was renewed. And because the named insured did not submit a new application in connection with the renewal transaction, we affirm. 

Here is a link to that opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/hughes_v._liberty_mutual_fire_insurance_opinion_unsigned.pdf.

NOTE: There is oftentimes a battle as to whether there is UM coverage at the time of a collision that causes personal injuries.  This opinion offers a good explanation as to when UM coverage is in fact available under Tennessee law.  

Summary Judgment for Defense in a Personal Injury Action Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Malone v. Viele, No. E2021-00637-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2021). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:  

This is a negligence case arising out of an injury suffered by the plaintiff when he fell off a ladder at the defendant’s cabin which was then under construction. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish his claim. The plaintiff appeals. We conclude that there is no dispute of material fact and that summary judgment in favor of the defendant was properly granted. Accordingly, we affirm.

Here is a link to that opinion: 

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/malone_v._viele_opinion_e2021-637-coa_unsigned_opinion.pdf.

NOTE: This opinion offers up a good analysis of Tennessee summary judgment practice.  It is worth reading in my opinion.  

West Virginia Personal Injury Settlement Proceeds Could Not Be Recharacterized as Wrongful Death Proceeds When Deceased Died After His Personal Injury Suit Was Settled

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Welch v. Welch, No. M2021-00081-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2021).  The syllabus reads: 

Prior to his death, the decedent brought suit for personal injury and loss of consortium in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia against more than seventy defendants after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Ultimately, the parties in that matter reached a settlement. After informing the West Virginia court of the resolution of the matter, the case was closed by the court. Shortly thereafter, and prior to full disbursement of the settlement proceeds, the decedent died from mesothelioma. Several of the decedent’s heirs then brought the present action in Tennessee, seeking to have the settlement proceeds received pursuant to the West Virginia litigation characterized as wrongful death proceeds. The trial court dismissed the heirs’ action, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal. 

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/welch.opn_.pdf.

NOTE: Despite a creative legal argument made by the losing side, this is the correct decision.  Once the W. Va. personal injury case was settled, prior to the injured plaintiff's death, the proceeds became personalty, which in turn became property of the his probate estate on his death.  The significance of this fact is that those proceeds pass under his will and not under the laws of intestacy as wrongful death proceeds pass.  See Welch, No. M2021-00081-COA-R3-CV, slip op. at 3–6.  While the opinion does not address this issue directly, obviously the plaintiffs below stood to receive (more) money if the proceeds were declared to be wrongful death proceeds that passed outside of the probate estate and under the laws of intestacy.  See id.

Death of a Party in a Pending Civil Action: Trial Court's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claim Upheld on Appeal Because Counsel Failed to Properly Revive the Suit Within the Time Allotted by Law and Trial Court Found No Reason to Enlarge Time for a Revivor to Be Effected

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Mead v. Tucker, No. M2020-01512-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this personal injury negligence action, the defendant died while the litigation was pending. The plaintiff failed to file a motion for substitution of party within ninety days of the original defendant’s death being suggested on the record. Over a month later, the plaintiff moved the trial court to enlarge the time to substitute the parties pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02(2). The trial court denied the motion for an enlargement of time. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/mead._deric.j._opn.pdf.

NOTE: This case reminds one of how important it is to properly revive a case against a deceased party and that an enlargement of time to do that is not always granted after the time to act has expired.  

New Case on Service of Leading Process: Trial Court's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Lawsuit Due to Counsel's Intentional Delay in Effecting Service Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Bridges v. Roth, No. W2020-01508-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 5. 2011).  The syllabus reads:  

This appeal involves a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.01(3) summons issue. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss after finding that plaintiff intentionally delayed the issuance of the summons for the complaint in contradiction to Rule 4.01(3) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. 

Here is a link to the opinion: 

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

NOTE: This opinion accentuates the fact that filing a complaint on time is 1(a) and effecting service of leading process os 1(b).  Both are so important.  

New Tennessee Claims Commission Case: Summary Judgment for the State Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has released its opinion in Victory v. State, No. M2020-01610-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This appeal arises from an action before the Tennessee Claims Commission for personal injuries filed on behalf of a minor child who broke her arm when she fell from playground equipment at Tims Ford State Park. The complaint asserted claims for negligence, gross negligence, and gross negligence per se. It alleged that the State was negligent by failing to adequately maintain its property, and by failing to discover, rectify, and/or warn against a dangerous condition, and allowing park visitors “to use the playground which did not have a safe surface area.” The State denied liability under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8- 307(a)(1)(C), insisting it had no notice of any dangerous condition; it also raised the “Recreational Use Statute,” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 70-7-101 to -105, as an affirmative defense. Following discovery, the State filed a motion for summary judgment, which the claims commissioner granted. The commissioner found the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on two grounds. The commissioner found that Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7- 102 of the Recreational Use Statute provided immunity to the State as a landowner against premises-liability claims and that the gross negligence exception under the statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-104(a)(1), did not apply. The commissioner also held that the claimants failed to show that notice of the alleged dangerous condition had been provided to the State, which is an essential element of the Claims Commission Act. The plaintiffs appeal one issue, asserting a genuine issue of material fact existed concerning whether the State’s failure to maintain the playground was gross negligence. We affirm the Commissioner’s decision on both grounds. 

Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/victory.rachel.opn_.pdf

NOTE: This opinion is an all-too-common reminder of the harsh effects of the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute [hereinafter Act] because it provides immunity to landowners and leaves persons who have been injured due to negligence uncompensated.  See Victory v. State, No. M2020-01610-COA-R3-CV, slip. op., passim (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2021).

This opinion also offers up a good explanation of gross negligence under the Act. Id. at 4.   

Lastly, the opinion reminds us of an important point regarding appellate practice, to wit:

     The State also argues that we should affirm the Commissioner’s decision because the Commissioner provided two independent grounds for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs appealed only one. “Tennessee law . . . provide[s] that where a trial court provides more than one separate and independent ground for its judgment and a party fails to appeal one or more of the independent grounds, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court on the ground that was not challenged on appeal.” Buckley v. Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, Inc., No. M2020-00804-COA-R10-CV, 2021 WL 2450456, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2021) (citations omitted)[, perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 14, 2021)]. 

     In addition to finding insufficient evidence of gross negligence, the Commissioner determined that Plaintiffs failed to establish an essential element of their claim under § 9- 8-307(a)(1)(C) of the Claims Commission Act because there was no evidence that the proper state official had been given notice of the playground’s condition. Plaintiff did not appeal this finding. Accordingly, we are compelled to affirm the Commissioner on this ground as well. 

Id. at 5. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Trial Court's Striking of Affirmative Defense Because a Certificate of Good Faith Was Not Filed to Support the Defense Upheld on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Hanson v. Levan, No. E2020-01581-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2021).  The syllabus form the slip opinion reads:

In this healthcare liability action, the plaintiff sued several medical professionals and facilities. Following an amended complaint, which had removed multiple parties from the action, the remaining defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint that included allegations of comparative fault against a doctor that the plaintiff had removed as a party to the action in the amended complaint. The defendants did not file a certificate of good faith in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122, which is required when a defendant alleges comparative fault against a “non-party.” Following a motion by the plaintiff, the trial court entered an order striking the defendants’ allegations of comparative fault. The trial court further found that the defendants had not demonstrated good cause to support an extension of time to file a certificate of good faith. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/brett_hanson_et_al._v._sarah_j._levan_et_al._0.pdf.

NOTE: This is the correct result under Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 29-26-122.