For example, a nurse’s medical error at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) took the life of a 75-year-old patient. The patient checked into the hospital to receive treatment for bleeding in her brain. Two days after her admission, the patient’s condition began to improve, and the staff was preparing for her release after a final scan. The nurse at issue was supposed to administer a sedative before the scan; however, she accidentally administered a paralyzing medication. The drug left the woman brain dead, and she was taken off life support a few days later.

The nurse explained that while she is responsible for the mistake, the hospital’s procedure made the event more likely to occur. She explained that the hospital permitted nurses to override the medication cabinet safety prompts. As such, since it was a regular practice, the nurse overrode the safety prompts that appeared on screen when she was gathering the medication. The mix-up occurred because the woman searched for the medication’s brand name, but the cabinet was set to search for generic names. Authorities reported that the bottle contained a warning label that indicated that the medication was a “PARALYZING AGENT.” The nurse admitted that if the bottle contained a warning label, she overlooked it.

The nurse’s attorney also purported that the hospital’s system was not working correctly on the day of the incident. He claims that VUMC is using the nurse as a scapegoat to hide their systemic issues. A state health investigator explained that she has a vague recollection of a medication cabinet error but does not know if the override function was a solution to the problem. The state nursing board recently revoked the woman’s nursing license because of a fatal medication error.

This tragic incident highlights the various ways a patient may receive inadequate or dangerous treatment at a healthcare facility. As such, it is essential that medication error victims contact an attorney to discuss their rights.

Have You Experienced Medical Negligence in Tennessee?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries or died because of a medical error in Tennessee, you should contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. The Hartsoe Law Firm provides high-quality and effective legal representation to Tennessee injury victims and their families. The firm handles Tennessee motor vehicle claims, premises liability, slip-and-falls, dog bites, product liability medical malpractice, nursing home abuse and negligence, and wrongful death. Attorney Mark C. Hartsoe has years of experience successfully representing clients in their claims for damages. He has been repeatedly selected as a Super Lawyer by Law and Politics Magazine. Contact the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your injury case.

In common parlance, “damages” means physical harm to a person or thing, thus impairing its value and/or usual function. If a car sustains “damages” in a collision, we think of this as meaning that there was an impact to the car that make it less useful (a smashed headlight and a damaged radiator due to a head-on collision, for instance) or less valuable (a $50,000 SUV may be worth only $10,000 in its post-crash condition).

However, there is a separate definition in the law for the word “damages,” namely the amount of money claimed or awarded in compensation for injuries suffered in an accident. This means that, when a jury awards “damages” of a certain amount, the court then directs the party against whom the award was made to pay that amount of money to the injured individual. It is important to note that, sometimes, there are limitations on the amount of money “damages” that can be awarded to the plaintiff in an East Tennessee personal injury case. One example is discussed in the case below.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case appealed to the state’s highest court was a woman who underwent a laparoscopic procedure in July 2005 to remove one of her kidneys after a potentially malignant mass was discovered. A certain medical device was used by the defendant surgeon during the procedure. During a gallbladder removal surgery performed by a different doctor in 2013, it was discovered that a portion of the device had been left inside the patient’s body some eight years earlier. Thereafter, the plaintiff (joined in the suit by her husband, who asserted a loss of consortium claim) filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, seeking compensation against the defendant surgeon (who performed the laparoscopic procedure in 2005), as well as several other medical providers, some of whom the plaintiffs alleged should have discovered the device inside the female plaintiff’s body during the course of their treatment of her for various conditions over the years.

The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the female plaintiff for $2,000,000 for pain and suffering plus $2,000,000 for loss of enjoyment of life and $500,000 to the male plaintiff for loss of consortium. Applying the statutory noneconomic damages cap codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-39-102, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs a total of $1,250,000 ($750,000 to the female plaintiff and $500,000 to the male plaintiff). The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court’s Decision in the Case

The Supreme Court of Tennessee accepted appellate review in order to decide whether Tennessee’s noneconomic damages cap applied separately to a spouse’s loss of consortium claim. Reversing the lower courts’ orders, the supreme court ruled that the language of Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-39-102 allowed both plaintiffs to recover only $750,000 in the aggregate for noneconomic damages. Thus, although the plaintiffs won their case in the trial court, the amount of money damages that they will ultimately receive will be limited under Tennessee law.

Interestingly, the supreme court deemed the plaintiffs’ arguments about the constitutionality of the statute in question to have been waived, insomuch as they were not properly presented below. It is possible that, at some future point, the court might revisit the issue of the statute’s constitutionality, which arguably could fail to pass constitutional muster with regards to the Takings Doctrine and/or other provisions.

Contact a Lawyer About an East Tennessee Personal Injury Case

If you need to speak to an experienced east Tennessee injury and wrongful death attorney about a medical malpractice claim, car wreck case, premises liability action, or other personal injury suit, please use the contact form on this website to contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. Alternatively, you can call us at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free consultation in our offices or, if you prefer, in your home.

There is a limited time for filing a healthcare liability action, and much is to be done in anticipation of the filing of the actual complaint. Seeking legal counsel sooner rather than later can help ensure that all of the necessary steps are completed in a timely fashion.

Facts of the Case

In a recent healthcare liability and wrongful death case originating in the Tennessee Claims Commission, the plaintiffs were the parents of a stillborn infant who was delivered in December 2017 when the mother was at about 29 weeks’ gestation. The delivery occurred at a hospital owed by the defendant state. The plaintiffs’ suit sought to assert claims for negligence and medical malpractice against several resident physicians and physicians who were employed by the defendant state at the time of the delivery. No claim was presented for damages to the plaintiff mother.

After the claim was transferred to the Claims Commission for litigation, the defendant state filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with both Tennessee Code Annotated 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) and the applicable statute of limitations. The Claims Commission denied the defendant state’s motion, prompting an appeal.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the Claims Commission’s denial of the defendant state’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court phrased the issue as whether the Claims Commission erred in denying the defendant state’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the medical records release provided by the plaintiffs allegedly failed to satisfy the requirements of § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), thus rendering the defendant state unable to obtain medical records of the deceased infant.

In affirming the Claims Commission’s denial of summary judgment, the reviewing court rejected the defendant state’s argument that the plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed because they failed to provide a release for the plaintiff mother’s medical records (they only provided a release for the deceased infant’s records). According to the appellate tribunal, it would have been unreasonable to have placed a burden upon the plaintiffs to predict how a medical provider would identify and archive its records and/or to anticipate how a records custodian would respond to an otherwise properly executed medical authorization.

Schedule a Free Consultation with a Wrongful Death Attorney in Knoxville

Losing a loved one to an act of medical malpractice – especially when the loved one is a child – is tragic. The process of holding the negligent medical provider legally liable can be long and difficult. To talk to an experienced east Tennessee medical malpractice attorney about a potential medical negligence case, please call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. Our office also handles car and truck accidents, slip and fall cases, product liability claims, and cases involving elder abuse. There is no charge for the office visit; we do not expect a legal fee to be paid until your case is settled or a judgment is entered in your favor.

Accordingly, it is vitally important to talk to a lawyer as soon as you suspect that you or a family member has been harmed due to a healthcare professional’s error. Waiting too long can seriously jeopardize the outcome of your case, as untimely claims will be dismissed by the court.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appellate case, the plaintiff was the next of kin of a woman who died of acute respiratory failure after being a patient at the defendant hospital in January 2018. The plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court of Davidson County in May 2019, asserting a claim for healthcare liability pursuant to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 29-26-102 et seq. In his complaint, the plaintiff averred that the defendant was “both directly and vicariously liable” under the principles of respondeat superior for the acts and omissions of its employees and agents. A copy of the complaint was mailed to the defendant on December 21, 2018, along with the notice required under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint against it, arguing that a principal could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of an employee or agent when the plaintiff’s direct claims against such employee or agent were procedurally barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville reversed the trial court’s decision. Phrasing the issue as whether the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims, the court turned to the provisions of the Act for instruction. Noting that Act specifically stated that the statutes of limitations or repose applicable to an action asserting a claim for health care liability were not to be shortened or lengthened thereunder, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court had erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s case as untimely.

In the court’s view, following the common law rule relied upon by the defendant would have effectively shortened the time for pre-suit resolution of claims for vicarious liability cases brought solely against a principal. Under the “trap” advocated by the defendant, a plaintiff who chose to sue a principal rather than its agents would have to give the principal pre-suit notice at least 60 days prior to the date upon which the statute of limitations applicable to the agent would expire, if the plaintiff was to benefit from the 120-day extension set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c). Thus, the court concluded that, in health care liability cases in which a plaintiff chooses to sue only the principal, the provisions of the Act regarding pre-suit notice prevailed over any previously declared common law exception with respect to the tolling of the statute of limitations.

Schedule a Free Consultation with an Injury Attorney in East Tennessee

A medical malpractice case in east Tennessee requires special handling and care. Because of the many procedural requirements in such cases, it is very important that a person who has been the victim of medical negligence or a family who has lost a loved one due to a medical professional’s mistake speak with an attorney as soon as possible. To schedule an appointment with the Hartsoe Law Firm to discuss your Knoxville or Maryville medical negligence case, call us at (865) 804-1011. If you prefer, you can contact us through the “contact us” section of this website.

In other words, the plaintiff’s fault is to be “compared” to that of the defendant. If the defendant is not found to be more at fault than the plaintiff, then the plaintiff’s case fails. (Tennessee is a “modified” comparative negligence state; in some states, the outcome of a case involving two equally negligent parties could differ.)

This idea seems simple enough, at least when there are only one plaintiff and one defendant. However, there are many cases in which this is not so; when there are multiple defendants, for instance, the jury must determine not only the relative fault between the plaintiff and the defendants but also compare the fault of the defendants among them so that, if the plaintiff prevails in the suit, the amount due him or her from each defendant can be determined.

Facts of the Case

In a recent malpractice case appealed from the Circuit Court of Benton County, the plaintiff sought to recover reasonable monetary compensation after she was allegedly hurt by an act of professional malpractice. According to the plaintiff’s original complaint, her injuries occurred after the defendant pharmacy dispensed the wrong medication. However, the pharmacy answered the plaintiff’s complaint by averring that the plaintiff’s treating physician had also breached his duty of care to the plaintiff and that non-party comparative fault should be assessed against him. Thereafter, the plaintiff amended her complaint to include a claim against the physician.

Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment to the physician, and he sought sanctions against the pharmacy on the grounds that the pharmacy’s certificate of good faith was supported by an incompetent expert witness. The trial court denied relief to the physician.

What the Reviewing Court Decided

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Although the pharmacy did not rely on the same expert’s opinion at the summary judgment stage of the litigation as with regard to the certificate of good faith, the appellate court disagreed with the physician’s assertion that this was an admission as to the witness’s inability to opine on the applicable standard of care. The court also pointed out that a party had a right to act in good faith prior to filing suit, even without all of the proof that would eventually be necessary to prove that party’s case at trial. The court then noted that it was the trial court, not the parties themselves (nor their attorneys), that ultimately decided the competence of expert witnesses.

The plaintiff settled her case with the pharmacy prior to trial and did not oppose the granting of summary judgment to the physician.

Do You Need to Get an Attorney’s Advice in an Injury or Death Case?

Medical malpractice cases are hard. Doctors and other healthcare professionals fight any finding of fault on their part, not just because of the financial consequences of a verdict (in truth, that money is usually paid out by insurance companies, not by the doctors or hospitals themselves) but because of the possible negative effect on a professional reputation. For those seeking to assert their legal rights regarding compensation, it pays to have skilled representation and to have it as early as possible in the litigation process. The Hartsoe Law Firm would be glad to answer your medical malpractice claim questions. Just call us at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free consultation (or use the contact form on this website, if you prefer.)

Failure to file the appropriate paperwork in a timely fashion can mean the end of the plaintiff’s case – and his or her chance of receiving fair compensation for a serious injury. Thus, it is very important that the injured person consult an east Tennessee personal injury attorney who can help him or her comply with all of the procedural requirements of the case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were a married couple who sought to recover monetary compensation for the alleged negligence of the defendants, an advanced practice nurse and a medical clinic. The plaintiffs began their case by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court of Shelby County on February 24, 2017. Summons were issued to the defendants at the time of the filing of the plaintiff’s suit, but they were returned without having been served. On September 5, 2017, alias summons were issued. These were served on the defendants on December 6, 2017, which was some 92 days after the complaint had been filed.

On November 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds that the suit had been untimely. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely upon the original date that their suit was filed to toll the statute of limitations because the alias summons had not been served upon the defendants within 90 days of its issuance as is generally required under Tennessee law. The trial court agreed and ruled in the defendants’ favor. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Appeals’ Court Decision

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson vacated the lower court’s order in the defendants’ favor and remanded the case with instructions to rule upon a motion filed by the plaintiffs in the trial court seeking an enlargement of time pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02. In so doing, the appellate court noted that the lower tribunal had stated that it was “unaware” of any basis for expanding the time for service of process of the plaintiffs’ complaint against the defendant; however, the appellate court pointed out that there had been a motion pending before the lower court seeking an enlargement of time under the rule when it granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. According to the reviewing court, Rule 6.02 “expressly contemplate[d]” a request for an enlargement of time “even after the expiration of the specified period” that an act would otherwise have been permitted if the moving party’s failure to act in a timely fashion was due to excusable neglect.

The appellate court acknowledged that there were other issues raised on appeal (such as whether the time for effecting service had actually elapsed and whether the defendants were entitled to rely on the service of process defense) but opined that, because the trial court’s written order contained no specific rulings on these issues, they were not appropriate for consideration on appeal. On remand, the trial court was directed to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ motion for an enlargement of time.

Speak to an Attorney About an Injury Case

The timely filing of a claim – and the effective service of process of the plaintiff’s complaint – are crucial in an east Tennessee personal injury case. If you have been hurt by another’s negligence or careless, you need to seek legal counsel as soon as possible so that the necessary court filings can be processed in a timely fashion. For an appointment to discuss your case with a helpful medical malpractice attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011.

When someone is hurt or passes away because of a healthcare practitioner’s mistake, the individual or the family of a deceased patient may be able to seek monetary compensation via an east Tennessee medical malpractice lawsuit. Time of the essence in a medical negligence case, as there are strict deadlines for filing a claim.

The first step in a malpractice case is usually to retain a qualified medical expert to examine the patient’s medical records. If that professional is of the opinion that the would-be defendant breached the applicable standard of care, the next step is filing suit in the appropriate court.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case arising in the Circuit Court for Hamblen County, the plaintiff was the husband of a woman who died from an undiagnosed aortic dissection in early 2013. The plaintiff filed suit, asserting a medical malpractice claim against the defendant cardiologist. The case was tried to a jury, which entered a defense verdict. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the basis that, during his testimony at trial, the defendant had shifted the blame for the decedent’s death onto a non-party, even though he had not pled comparative fault in his pleadings. The case proceeded to a second trial, which found in the plaintiff’s favor. The defendant sought appellate review, arguing that he had not attempted to shift the blame onto a non-party as the trial court had found before ordering the retrial.

The Court’s Decision on Appeal

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The defendant argued that, although he did testify at the first trial that the nurses on duty never notified him of the decedent’s ongoing chest pain, this was not an attempt to shift the blame for the decedent’s death onto a non-party. In ruling in the plaintiff’s favor on appeal, the court acknowledged that there had been a factual dispute at trial regarding whether the defendant had been advised that the decedent was experiencing pain after he had left the hospital for the day. According the defendant, a nurse had called him but only to ask if he had any orders for medication “in case” the decedent needed it. The nurse, on the other hand, testified that she had told the defendant “in no uncertain terms” that the decedent was continuing to experience chest pain.

According to the court, when the defendant testified, point-blank, that he was never notified of the decedent’s pain and that, had it been so notified, he would have re-evaluated her, he was attempting to shift blame onto the nurse. Because he had not pleaded comparative fault against any other medical providers in his answer to the plaintiff’s complaint, the court found that the trial court had acted appropriately in granting a new trial to the plaintiff following the jury’s verdict in the defendant’s favor.

Consult a Medical Negligence Attorney

Losing a loved one because of a negligent physician can be one of the most painful things that a family can experience. Unless the careless doctor is held accountable for his or her actions, it is quite possible that similar mistakes will be made in the future, causing untold pain and heartache to other patients and their families. If you have questions about the procedure for filing an east Tennessee medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor, nurse, or hospital that has caused injury or death to you or a loved one, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011, or contact us through this website. We handle cases in Knoxville, Maryville, and the surrounding area, and we look forward to serving your family during this difficult time.

In addition to the filing of the complaint with the clerk of the court in the county in which jurisdiction is pled, the plaintiff must also file serve a copy of the complaint on the defendant(s) in the case. Generally speaking, this can be done one of two ways: by local sheriff deputies or by a private process server.

There are procedural rules, applicable in East Tennessee personal injury and other civil cases, including time limitations on both the filing of the complaint and the perfecting of service of process, that must be followed. Failure to follow these rules or meet these deadlines can be very detrimental to the plaintiff’s legal rights.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case considered by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville was the widow of a man who allegedly died due to the negligence of the defendant medical providers. The plaintiff filed her healthcare liability lawsuit against the defendants in the Circuit Court for Knox County in January 2018. Rather than have service of process proceed as usual through the local sheriff’s office, however, the plaintiff’s attorney chose to personally serve the defendants’ registered agent for service of process with copies of the pleadings. This service of process took place 89 days after the plaintiff filed her complaint, and return of the summons was made about seven months after the filing of the complaint.

In June 2018, the defendants filed an answer to the plaintiff’s complaint, denying liability as to the underlying cause of action and asserting as an affirmative defense a denial that they had been properly serviced with process. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defense, asserting that it had not been sufficiently pled in light of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8.03. Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s case pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 4.01(3) and 12.02(4)-(5) on the grounds of the plaintiff’s alleged intentional delay of process, insufficient service of process, and insufficient process. The Trial Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed.

Decision of the Court

The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed that the trial court had acted properly in denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike, but ruled that a reversible error had occurred with regard to the granting of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In agreeing with the plaintiff that the trial court should not have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss her complaint due to insufficient service of process, the reviewing court first pointed out that the burden was on the defendants to prove that the plaintiff’s delay in completing service of process was intentional, and the trial court’s judicial notice of matters such as the proximity of the registered agent for service of process to the courthouse or the approximate amount of time it would have taken for service to occur by mail failed to satisfy the defendants’ burden.

The court went on to opine that, because the defendants had not shown an intentional delay in service of process by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not obligated to present proof that the delay was not intentional. The inferences in favor of the parties being equal, the defendants had not met their burden, and it was thus error for the trial court to grant their motion to dismiss.

Speak to Counsel About Your Injury or Death Case

Knowing, understanding, and following the procedural rules of litigation, especially those involving deadlines and filing requirements, are crucial in a negligence case. If you have lost someone in your family due to another’s careless behavior, or if you have been hurt by an act of negligence or malpractice, the Hartsoe Law Firm is here to help. For an appointment, call us at (865) 804-1011. Please do not wait until the last minute to seek legal advice about your case; the investigation of an injury or wrongful death case can be a time-consuming process – and one that should not be rushed, if the plaintiff’s case is ultimately to be successful.

In most cases, this paperwork includes a summons and complaint, both of which must be filed with the clerk and served upon the defendant. In some kinds of cases, including those involving health care providers, there are other documents that may also need to be filed in order to perfect the filing of the complaint.

An attorney experienced in these types of cases can help a would-be plaintiff understand the filing requirements, assist him or her in preparation of the necessary documents, and represent the plaintiff’s interests during the litigation and trial of the matter. If an argument arises regarding whether all of the filing requirements have been met, the attorney can also prepare appellate briefs and argue the case in front of the appellate tribunal(s).

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was a woman who was allegedly sexually assaulted during a massage at the defendant’s salon and spa business in 2014. The plaintiff filed suit against the business in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, asserting claims for negligent training, negligent supervision, and negligent retention of the massage therapist (who was also named in the lawsuit and had been the subject of two previous complaints to the defendant from customers). The salon filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, asserting that the plaintiff’s failure to file a certificate of good faith along with her complaint as required by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (in particular, § 29-26-122) was fatal to her claim. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed.

Decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Upon further appeal to the state’s highest court, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and vacated the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court began its analysis by acknowledging that the defendant salon was a “health care provider” within the meaning of the Act, thus triggering certain filing requirements. Although the defendant maintained that the plaintiff was required to file a certificate confirming that she (or her counsel) had consulted with an expert witness and that there was a good faith basis for her legal action, the plaintiff insisted that the certificate of good faith referred to by the defendant was not required, given the nature of her complaint, which she insisted did not require expert testimony in order to succeed on its merits.

The intermediate appellate court had agreed with the defendant, holding that the plaintiff had waived the “common knowledge” exception; the court had went on to further hold that the plaintiff’s claim did, despite her insistence to the contrary, require the testimony of an expert witness in order to be viable. The supreme court disagreed with both of these contentions, ruling that the plaintiff had not waived the common knowledge exception and that the plaintiff’s claim against the salon was within the common knowledge of laypersons and, thus, did not require expert testimony about the standard of care in the massage industry. Because there was no requirement to file a certificate of good faith under the circumstances, the trial court should not have granted summary judgment to the defendant.

To Speak to an Attorney About an East Tennessee Injury Lawsuit

If you have been hurt by a negligent individual or business, you need to consult an attorney about your legal rights. Knoxville personal injury lawyer Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm is here to help those in and around the east Tennessee area with a wide array of injury and wrongful death claims, including medical malpractice, car accidents, and product liability. For an appointment, call us at (865) 804-1011. We are open during the COVID-19 crisis, and we will make every effort to serve you in the safest manner possible in these trying times.

Facts of the Case

The primarily plaintiff in a recent appellate case was a man who was prescribed a certain medication for his diabetes in 2014. The following summer, the Food and Drug Administration issued a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy to warn of the risk of acute pancreatitis for those using the medication. According to the complaint filed by the plaintiff (joined by his wife), he was not warned of this risk by any of the defendants (a doctor, two medical groups, a home delivery pharmacy, and others). The plaintiff was later diagnosed with acute pancreatitis, sepsis, and acute respiratory failure; additional hospitalizations followed, as did a fall that occurred when the plaintiff was in a weakened physical state and which resulted in a severe traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit, filed in the Knox County Circuit Court, alleged that he had been damaged as a result of the acute pancreatitis and a subsequent traumatic brain injury caused by his use of the prescription medication and his medical providers’ failure to appropriately “prescribe, counsel, provide, utilize, and/or discontinue this medication.” The plaintiff alleged claims of both strict liability and simple negligence against the manufacturer of the medication; he also asserted health care liability claims against the other defendants. The home delivery pharmacy filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint based upon the “seller shield statute” of the Tennessee Product Liability Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-28-106. The trial court denied the motion.

Decision of the Court

Stating the issue as whether, where a plaintiff’s complaint asserted a claim under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act against a pharmacy and/or pharmacist, were the pharmacy/pharmacist able to assert the “seller shield” defense contained in the state’s product liability act, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. In so holding, the court noted that the trial court had determined – and the pharmacy had conceded – that all of the plaintiff’s claims fell under the health care liability act rather than the product liability act. The court then opined that a “natural and reasonable reading” of the “seller shield” law demonstrated that it only applied to product liability actions, not health care liability actions. The court of appeals also noted that the health care liability act applied to all health care providers, including pharmacies and pharmacists, and contained no limitation based on seller immunity.

Speak to an East Tennessee Injury Attorney

Cases involving medical malpractice, pharmaceutical negligence, or product liability take considerable time, skill, and legal expertise. If you have been hurt by a doctor’s malpractice, a faulty product, or an individual or business’s negligence and need to talk to a knowledgeable Knoxville medical malpractice and personal injury attorney, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case addressing the constitutionality of a statute, the plaintiff was the daughter of a woman who allegedly died as a result of the defendant medical providers’ negligence. The daughter filed a healthcare liability wrongful death lawsuit, asserting that the defendants’ medical treatment of her mother fell below the applicable standard of care and that this breach of duty was the proximate cause of her mother’s death. As the lawsuit progressed, the defendants filed a motion for a qualified protective order pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(f), requesting that they be permitted to conduct interviews of certain healthcare providers who had provided medical treatment to the plaintiff’s mother but had not been named as defendants in the case. These interviews were to take place outside the presence of the attorneys who represented the plaintiff in her lawsuit.

The plaintiff objected to the defendants’ motion for the qualified protective order on the basis that § 29-26-121(f) was unconstitutional. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions for the ex parte interviews, commenting that the legislature had overstepped its bounds in saying that “the court shall do something,” but opining that it was not a trial court judge’s place to declare a statute unconstitutional. The Tennessee Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff’s application for an interlocutory appeal, but the Tennessee Supreme Court granted her permission to seek review of the trial court’s ruling.

The Tennessee Supreme Court’s Ruling

In its analysis of the underlying issue, the court noted that the creation of a privilege, including the physician/patient privilege, was at least partially substantive in nature and was within the province of the legislature. The court went on to note that, if it was within the province of the legislature to create a privilege, then it was only logical that the legislature also had the authority to say that a particular privilege did not exist in a particular context. While the judiciary should yield to the legislature with regard to the overriding purpose of a statute such as the one at issue if possible, the court’s determined that its inquiry did not end there.

In the supreme court’s view, the problematic language of the statute was that it effectively stripped trial courts of their discretion in deciding whether to grant an ex parte order in a given case. It being well-settled Tennessee case law that decisions regarding pre-trial discovery rested in the sound discretion of the trial court, the state supreme court ruled that the legislature had overstepped its constitutional boundaries and violated the separation of powers clause in the state constitution in depriving the trial court of its discretion in discovery matters with the enactment of § 29-26-121(f).

Relying on the general severability statute, the court elided the statute to make it permissive rather than mandatory, thereby allowing defendants in healthcare liability actions to petition a trial court for a qualified protective order for ex parte interviews with non-party treating healthcare providers, but it left the disposition for such petitions to the trial court’s discretion. The court concluded by remanding the matter to the trial court for a determination as to whether the defendants’ petition should be granted in the instant case.

Speak to a Wrongful Death Attorney

If you have lost a spouse, parent, or child and believe that another’s negligence was the cause, you should talk to an attorney who handles wrongful death cases to see if you have a viable claim against the responsible party. Wrongful death lawsuits require a great deal of evidence, and strict time limits apply. Thus, it is very important that prompt legal action be taken. For an appointment to talk to an established east Tennessee wrongful death attorney about your case, call Attorney Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. We represent clients in Knoxville, Maryville, Oak Ridge, Clinton, Sevierville, Gatlinburg, and other cities throughout Tennessee.

Generally speaking, failure to provide this notice can result in dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit based on failure to comply with the state’s health care liability statute. However, there are exceptions to this general rule, as the appellate court held in a recent case.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was the husband of a woman who died in April 2016, following an emergency craniotomy that was performed due to stroke-like symptoms the woman suffered shortly after being released from a hospital where she had sought medical treatment for an apparent aneurysm. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant medical providers in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County, alleging that the defendants had failed to adequately and timely treat the decedent, thereby causing her various personal injuries and, ultimately, her death. Pursuant to the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, the plaintiff attempted to provide pre-suit notice of his intent to bring a health care liability action against each defendant named in his complaint and filed his complaint within the 12o-day extension of the statute of limitations provided by the statute.

In their answers to the plaintiff’s complaint, each defendant raised the affirmative defense of comparative fault. Two defendant doctors then moved for summary judgment, arguing that no judgment could be entered against them because their employer, whom they asserted was covered under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, was not named as a party defendant. The plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to add the employer as a defendant, but the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted summary judgment to the defendant doctors.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville vacated the lower court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant doctors and remanded the case for further proceedings. According to the court of appeals, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(5), the defendant doctors were required to identify their governmental entity employer as a known and necessary party within 30 days after receiving pre-suit notice. Because they did not do so, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 their subsequent declaration of the necessity of the nonparty employer to the suit, after the complaint was filed, granted the plaintiff an additional 90 days following the filing of the first answer to amend his complaint in order to add the nonparty employer as a defendant. The court further ruled that, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c), the plaintiff’s addition of the nonparty employer was not barred for failure to provide pre-suit notice.

Schedule a Free Legal Consultation

If you have been hurt by a negligent doctor or other medical professional, you need to consult an attorney as soon as possible. Medical negligence cases take time to prepare, and waiting too late to talk to an attorney can be very risky. To schedule an appointment with an experienced Tennessee medical malpractice lawyer, call the Hartsoe Law Firm today at (865) 804-1011. There’s no charge for the consultation, and we can arrange a home or hospital visit if you need us to do so.

However, it may come as a surprise to an average Tennessean that many medical malpractice cases are dismissed annually based not on a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence but because of some technicality in the voluminous amount of paperwork that must now accompany a malpractice claim.

This is one of the many reasons that it is critically important to contact an attorney as soon as you suspect you or a family member has suffered from an act of medical malpractice; the sooner you can get started on your case, the more likely you are to be able to jump through the many “hoops” that have become part of our law through the endless lobbying efforts of the medical establishment and their insurers.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man whose brought suit against the defendant medical providers (a hospital, multiple doctors, and others) after his wife reportedly died from complications of a pneumonic infection after multiple emergency room visits while pregnant with their first child. The plaintiff’s medical negligence lawsuit was filed in September 2017, after he had given pre-suit notice as required by T.C.A. 29-26-121.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit on the basis that the plaintiff had not been compliant with the provisions of T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), which, in the defendants’ view required that the plaintiff’s pre-suit notice include a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization allowing each and every healthcare provider who received the notice to obtain complete medical records from every other provider was sent the notice. The Circuit Court of Knox County ruled in the defendants’ favor, holding that the plaintiff’s authorizations failed to substantially comply with the statute’s requirements because they did not explicitly allow each provider to obtain records from the other providers. The plaintiff appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville reversed and remanded, holding that the plaintiff’s method of permitting the defendants access to the decedent’s medical records was in substantial compliance with the statute and that, thus, the trial court had been wrong to dismiss the suit. The court began by acknowledging that the lower court had dismissed the plaintiff’s case on a motion to dismiss and that there was a de novo standard in reviewing such an order (i.e. there was no presumption that the lower court had been correct in its ruling).

The court went on to discuss the basic requirements for a HIPAA-complaint authorization under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996: a description of the information to be disclosed, the name of the person authorized to make the disclosure, the name of the person to whom the covered entity may make the disclosure, a description of the purpose of the disclosure, an expiration date, and a dated signature. Although the trial court had found that the plaintiff’s authorization was in compliance with HIPAA, it had found that it nevertheless failed to comply with § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) because it did not allow each of the defendants to obtain records from the others.

In the appellate court’s view, however, a notice letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendants served to inform the defendants that all other listed medical providers had received a similar HIPAA-compliant authorization so as to allow each listed medical provider to obtain complete medical records from every other provider. Thus, the court found that there had been substantial compliance with the applicable statute and that the trial court had erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

How to Learn More About Your Legal Rights

Attorney Mark Hartsoe handles medical malpractice cases in Knoxville, Maryville, and elsewhere in east Tennessee. For an appointment to discuss your case, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 at your earliest convenience.

Timing is important, as there should be strict compliance with the applicable statute of limitations and statute of repose, and there are now several pre-suit requirements (including consultation with an expert medical witness) that must be met if the plaintiff is to ever have his or her day in court.

Of course, even when all of the procedural “i”s are dotted and “t”s crossed, most medical negligence defendants will still seek to have the plaintiff’s case dismissed if at all possible.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case appealed from the Circuit Court of Hamblen County was a woman who had underwent a cardiac catheterization procedure at the defendant hospital in 2010. According to the plaintiff, she complained of an unbearable headache and nausea during the night following the surgery and begged the defendant nurse to stop administering the nitroglycerin that she had been prescribed. The nurse, in turn, insisted that the plaintiff had consented to further doses of the medication after being advised of its medical necessity. Eventually, it was discovered that the plaintiff had developed a hematoma and pseudoaneurysm at the catheterization site, necessitating emergency surgery to repair an artery.

The plaintiff filed a healthcare liability action against the hospital, the nurse, and a physician in 2012. She voluntarily dismissed her first suit in 2014 and refiled her claim almost a year later pursuant to the saving statute. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Following the denial of her request to alter or amend the judgment, the plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. Phrasing the issues as 1) whether the lower court had abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to continue and for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of possible witness coercion of one of the plaintiff’s experts by the defendant and 2) whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend, the court of appeals reversed both the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s request for a continuance and its grant of summary judgment.

Because the plaintiff had suffered extreme prejudice as a result of the trial court’s denial of the continuance (as evidenced by the grant of summary judgment when she was left without an expert through which to respond to pending motions as they related to the defendant hospital and nurse), the appellate court held that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of witness coercion and the corresponding motion for a continuance. Accordingly, the court also reversed the grant of summary judgment as premature.

Speak to an Experienced Knoxville Healthcare Liability Attorney

If you believe that you or a family member has been hurt by the actions (or failure to take action, as the case may be) by a medical professional, you need reliable legal advice. To schedule an appointment to discuss your situation with an experienced east Tennessee medical malpractice lawyer, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 today. Please remember that there are many time constraints in healthcare liability lawsuits, so it is important to contact legal counsel as soon as possible so that the appropriate steps may be taken to get your claim filed in a timely fashion.

In addition, lobbying efforts from medical associations and those who provide liability insurance to physicians and hospitals have resulted in there being additional “hoops” that a plaintiff must jump through in order to file a claim seeking compensation for a doctor or hospital’s mistake.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case filed in the Circuit Court for Green County was a woman who asserted a health care liability action against the defendants, a regional hospital and three doctors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint due to the plaintiff’s failure to file a certificate of good faith along with her complaint. After the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed, the plaintiff filed the certificate. The defendants then filed a purported “motion for summary judgment.” In response, the plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal (nonsuit) of her complaint. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion and dismissed her complaint without prejudice (which would arguably allow her to refile the action within a certain time period, while still being considered filed within the statute of limitations). The defendants appealed.

Outcome of the Case

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed. In so holding, the court noted that both the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment related solely to the plaintiff’s alleged failure to file a certificate of good faith along with complaint when she began her suit. Likewise, the affidavits submitted by the defendants in support of their motions also related solely to the certificate. Under the circumstances, the court of appeals held that the trial court had not erred in treating the defendants’ motions for summary judgment as simply a “restyled” motion to dismiss. The court also ruled that the plaintiff’s right to take a voluntary nonsuit was not disturbed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01 and that, thus, the lower court had acted in accordance with applicable law in entering an order of voluntary dismissal.

In so holding, the court noted that, generally, a plaintiff may not take a voluntary nonsuit while a motion for summary judgment is pending, but, here, the defendant’s summary judgment motion was more in the nature of a motion to dismiss than a true motion for summary judgment.

Seasoned Knoxville Medical Malpractice Attorney Reviewing Cases

Taking prompt legal action in any case involving personal injury or wrongful death can be critical, but this is especially true in cases involving medical negligence. There are rules and requirements in these kinds of cases that, if not complied with, can mean that the plaintiff’s case may be dismissed even if the defendant deviated from the standard of care and caused harm to him or her. For a free case review by an experienced Knoxville medical malpractice lawyer, call the Hartsoe Law Firm today at (865) 804-1011. There is no charge for the appointment, and many cases are handled on a contingency fee contract.

Related Blog Posts Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Revise Should Have Been Granted in Medical Malpractice Case Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds that Plaintiffs Substantially Complied With Pre-Suit Requirements in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

In Tennessee, we had a pretty major change in our malpractice laws a few years ago. Whereas before, all it took to file a medical malpractice lawsuit was to type up a basic complaint and file it at the courthouse within the statute of limitations, there are now many more steps to the process – and many more reasons for a medical negligence claim to be dismissed on a technicality before an actual inquiry into whether the medical professional did or did not commit an act of malpractice.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a female customer who filed suit against the defendants, a male massage therapist and his “day spa” employer, seeking compensation for damages associated with the alleged therapist’s sexual assault on her during a massage that she received in April 2014. Included in the plaintiff’s complaint were claims for assault and battery, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment against the therapist and claims for vicarious liability, negligence, and negligent supervision, retention, and training against the employer.

The defendants sought summary judgment, averring that the plaintiff’s failure to include a certificate of good faith in her complaint as required by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act was fatal to her complaint, even though she had complied with the pre-suit notice requirements of the Act. The trial court agreed with the defendants and granted summary judgment to them, thus dismissing all of the customer’s claims with prejudice.

The Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed in part and reversed in part. Although the court agreed with the lower tribunal that the Act applied to the customer’s claims against employer, the appellate court ruled that the requirements of the Act were not applicable to her claims against the therapist. With regard to the plaintiff’s claims against the therapist, the court opined that the Act did not apply to a cause of action based on the intentional sexual battery of a licensed health care practitioner. Thus, the plaintiff’s suit against the therapist remained viable, despite her failure to include a good faith certificate.

East Tennessee Injury Attorney Reviewing Cases

If you have been injured by a so-called health care “professional,” through negligence or intentional conduct, you have a right to assert a claim for money damages for your medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. However, there are many procedural requirements in these types of cases, and failure to comply with even one of these many steps can result in dismissal of an otherwise valid claim. To talk to a knowledgeable Knoxville medical malpractice lawyer about your case, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 and ask for a free consultation.

Related Blog Post Trial Court Improperly Dismissed Health Care Liability Action for Lack of Pre-Suit Notice, According to Tennessee Court of Appeals Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds that Plaintiffs Substantially Complied With Pre-Suit Requirements in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

If you or a person close to you has been hurt by a medical provider’s negligence, you can be sure that the defendant will take every possible opportunity to avoid being held liable for your injuries. It is consequently very important that you talk to a Tennessee personal injury lawyer about your case as soon as possible so that you will have the best possible chance for success in your case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff had undergone knee replacement surgery and was a patient at a rehabilitation hospital in Memphis. The hospital arranged for the defendant transportation company to drive him to an appointment to see his orthopedic surgeon for followup in December 2014. After the plaintiff was seated in the van, he was asked to sign paperwork that contained exculpatory language purporting to release the transportation company from any and all liability related to its services. After his appointment with the surgeon, the plaintiff fell while attempting to get back into the van.

The plaintiff filed suit against the transportation company in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, seeking monetary compensation for the injuries he sustained in the fall. The circuit court ruled that the exculpatory provisions of the document signed by the plaintiff protected the defendant from liability, and the court of appeals affirmed. The plaintiff then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

The Court’s Decision

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceeding. In so doing, the court considered the totality of the circumstances and weighed the inequality of the parties’ relative bargaining power with regard to the agreement, as well as the lack of clarity in the language of the agreement and the various public policy implications involved in allowing the agreement to prohibit the patient from recovering damages from the transportation company under the circumstances.

According to the court, it made sense that public policy should protect a hospital patient such as the plaintiff under the circumstances giving rise to the litigation. The exculpatory provisions of the agreement were thus ruled unenforceable and did not, as a matter of law, bar the plaintiff’s claim.

Schedule an Appointment with an East Tennessee Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you or a loved one needs legal advice concerning a possible claim against a doctor, nurse, medical facility, or other healthcare provider, please call the Hartsoe Law Firm to schedule an appointment with experienced east Knoxville medical malpractice lawyer Mark Hartsoe. You can reach us at (865) 804-1011. Please be mindful that there is a strict statute of limitations, as well as a statute of repose, in healthcare liability cases. Failure to file a timely claim will likely result in dismissal of your claim, so please do not delay in speaking to counsel about your situation.

Related Blog Posts Tennessee Health Care Liability Act Requirements Held Not to Apply to Alleged Assault by Security Officer in Treatment Facility Tennessee Court of Appeals Says County’s Third-Party Claim Against Medical Services Company Following Attack on Inmate Was Not a “Health Care Liability Claim”

If a litigant believes that some impropriety has taken place that could prejudice his or her at trial later on, he or she may file a motion to recuse the trial court judge, as happened in a recent Tennessee wrongful death lawsuit. Of course, such a motion is not automatically granted, as the moving party must have valid reasons for the request.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case filed in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, the plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a man who allegedly died as a result of an act of medical negligence committed by the defendant health care provider. The plaintiff filed suit, both individually and as surviving spouse, seeking monetary compensation for the decedent’s death. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which the trial court judge indicated that he was going to deny on the basis that there were disputes over material facts. The judge’s law clerk allegedly stopped the plaintiff’s counsel in the hallway after the hearing and asked him to submit an order denying the defendant’s motion.

The defendant then filed a motion to recuse the trial court judge, arguing that the trial court’s ex parte communication with the plaintiff’s attorney warranted a recusal of the judge. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, holding that the communication at issue was simply to ask that, as the prevailing party, the plaintiff’s attorney submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the court’s reference in preparing its order. The trial court also noted that there was no substantive, procedural, or tactical advantage gained by the plaintiff during the communication insomuch as it was the trial court judge’s intention to draft an order himself after the defendant’s counsel had been provided with a copy of the plaintiff’s proposed order and given an opportunity to respond.

The Court’s Decision

The Tennessee Court of Appeals first noted that, when entertaining an appeal based upon a motion to recuse a trial court judge, the appellate court may order the parties to file additional documents or it may adjudicate the appeal summarily, without an answer from other parties to the matter. After reviewing the defendant’s petition and supporting documents, the appellate court opted to act summarily and deny the defendant’s request to overturn the trial court judge’s denial of the motion to recuse.

Although the defendant urged the appellate court that the trial court judge should have been recused due to bias, prejudice, and/or impartiality, the appellate court disagreed. The mere fact that the trial court judge denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (a decision that was not part of the appeal) did not prove bias or prejudice. The trial court judge did not deny that there had been an ex parte communication with the plaintiff’s counsel but characterized the communication as “for administrative purposes only.” In reviewing the record, the appeals court agreed with the lower tribunal that there were no facts in the record to mandate recusal.

Speak to an Experienced Tennessee Injury Attorney

Losing a loved one due to the negligence of a heath care provider can be one of life’s most devastating blows, leaving those left behind with great emotional pain and serious financial hardship. At the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., we help families who need to move forward following a loved one’s wrongful death by helping them assert their legal right to seek compensation in a court of law. For a free consultation in our east Tennessee offices, call us now at (865) 804-1011.

Related Blog Posts Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Revise Should Have Been Granted in Medical Malpractice Case Tennessee Court of Appeals Sends Medical Malpractice Case Back to Trial Court with Instructions Concerning Number of Peremptory Challenges

Failing to prove any one of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence will result in the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appellate case, the plaintiffs were family members of a woman who died while incarcerated at a county jail. They filed a claim against the defendant, a contractor that provided medical services to the jail, seeking compensation for their loved one’s wrongful death. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was liable for the negligence of its nurse, who was on duty at the time of their loved one’s death, as well as for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.

After the defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that there was not a genuine issue of material fact as to causation, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to revise based on the newly submitted declarations of an expert physician. The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion, and they appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville reversed the trial court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to revise. Although the plaintiffs stated that their motion to revise was in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54, the appellate court opined that the motion sought relief that was more consistent with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and treated it as such. The court went on to explain that a Rule 59 motion allows a trial court to correct factual errors or mistakes regarding the law that may have been overlooked or that the court may have failed to consider.

Here, the plaintiffs’ motion was based on previously unavailable evidence, specifically the declarations of a doctor who was an expert in pathology, and it was supported by an affidavit by the plaintiffs’ attorney, explaining that the expert had suffered an injury that had resulted in communication difficulties. The appellate court went on to hold that, given the policy of hearing cases on their merits and the absence of any unfair prejudice to the defendant occasioned by the delay in the expert’s testimony, the interests of justice required that the plaintiffs’ motion to revise be granted.

Schedule a Free Consultation with a Wrongful Death Attorney

If you have recently suffered the loss of a loved one and believe that the negligence of a medical professional or other individual may have been to blame, you need legal advice concerning your rights. Tennessee has a short statute of limitations for wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits, and failing to file a claim within this time period will likely cause your case to be dismissed by the court. For a free consultation with an experienced Knoxville wrongful death lawyer, call the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., at (865) 804-1011.

Related Blog Posts Tennessee Law Allows Additurs in Medical Malpractice Cases, But They Are Subject to Review on Appeal Tennessee Court of Appeals Sends Medical Malpractice Case Back to Trial Court with Instructions Concerning Number of Peremptory Challenges

Whether or not a plaintiff has performed all of the procedural requirements to proceed with a medical negligence case is often a subject of disagreement. When this happens, the trial court judge must decide whether there has been compliance with the applicable rules. A party displeased with the trial court’s ruling has the option of seeking an appellate court’s review. This is a very important issue because failure to comply with the applicable procedural rules can mean dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in a case recently considered by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville were the parents, surviving minor children, and estate of a woman who died after being found unresponsive in her room at the defendant hospital. The hospital specialized in in-patient psychiatric care, including detoxification from alcohol and controlled substances and suicidal ideation. The plaintiffs filed their first complaint against the hospital and others in October 2014, but voluntarily dismissed it in January 2015.

The plaintiffs filed a second complaint against the same defendants in January 2016. The defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121 and were thus not entitled to the 120-day extension of the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), and thus their original complaint was time-barred.

Opinion of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. According to the court of appeals, the plaintiffs had substantially complied with the requirements of § 29-26-121, and the defendants had not shown that they were prejudiced by the deficiencies in the authorizations supplied by the plaintiffs. Dismissal on procedural grounds being disfavored in Tennessee, the plaintiffs had substantially complied with all pre-suit requirements and were entitled to a 120-day extension of the statute of limitations – thus rendering their live complaint timely.

The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had not met their procedural hurdles because they failed to send notice to the registered agent of the hospital and another defendant, that the plaintiffs had failed to include a certain doctor’s name in their pre-suit notice, and that they had provided the defendants with incomplete authorizations. The court responded by noting that the defendants had received timely notice and were not prejudiced by the fact that their agents did not receive such notice. The court also sided with the plaintiffs on the issue of whether the doctor in question has been properly identified to the defendants, finding that he had been included on a list of providers sent to the defendants in September 2015. With regard to the authorization forms complained of by the defendants, the court found that the defendants had failed to show any prejudice stemming from the alleged deficiencies in the authorizations.

Schedule a Consultation with an East Tennessee Medical Malpractice Lawyer

If you have suffered serious injury or lost a loved one due to the negligence of a doctor, nurse, or other healthcare provider, you should talk to an attorney about your legal rights as soon as possible. There are important deadlines that, if not met, can result in dismissal of a case that could have otherwise resulted in substantial damages for the injured person or the family of a person who was the victim of wrongful death. To schedule a consultation with a helpful Knoxville medical malpractice lawyer, call the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., today at (865) 804-1011.

Related Blog Posts Tennessee Court Reverses Dismissal of Health Care Liability Action as to Two Defendants Trial Court Improperly Dismissed Health Care Liability Action for Lack of Pre-Suit Notice, According to Tennessee Court of Appeals