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.

The reality is that, regardless of how strong the plaintiff’s case might be, recovering fair compensation in a personal injury or wrongful death case depends heavily on whether or not the negligent party was insured. Technically, the plaintiff can pursue collection on a judgment by attaching the defendant’s assets, garnishing his or her wages, and the like, but this is usually a very slow process and one that, at best, typically yields only a fraction of the amount of money to which the plaintiff was entitled.

Because of the power of the insurance company lobbyists, jurors rarely hear a word about insurance. The insurance company would much rather jurors believe that every penny of a judgment was coming out of the defendant’s pocket – the idea being that a lower judgment will result when a person, not a big insurance company, is paying the plaintiff what he or she is due. Sometimes, however, there are cases in which the insurance company is front and center in a lawsuit.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee was an insurance company that provided a $1 million renters insurance policy to the defendant, a woman who operated a daycare out of the insured premises. The insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the woman with regard to the alleged July 2018 wrongful death of 23-month-old twins, who drowned in a backyard swimming pool while in the woman’s care. The twins’ parents were also named as defendants in the insurance company’s cause of action, and they filed a counter-claim against the insurance company.

The parties filed various motions for judgment on the pleadings and/or for summary judgment.

The District Court’s Decision

The trial court denied the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and granted the parents’ motions for judgment on the pleadings on their counterclaim and for partial summary judgment on the insurance company’s claims. Although the insurance company attempted to rely on a purported “childcare services exclusion” in the insurance policy in order to avoid the possibility of paying out a wrongful death claim brought by the parents for their children’s drownings, the federal district court found that “non-excluded risks” concurrently and substantially caused the twins’ deaths, thus triggering the insurance company’s duty to indemnify the defendant.

While the parents will still have to prove their wrongful death claim by a preponderance of the evidence, the fact that the insurance company will have to indemnify the defendant will make it much more likely that the parents will prevail in the case, either at trial or via a settlement.

Get Started on an East Tennessee Wrongful Death Claim

If you have lost a loved one to a swimming pool drowning or other act of homeowner negligence, you may be entitled to substantial money damages for your family member’s wrongful death. To learn more about how to assert your legal rights, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm via this website or by calling (865) 804-1011. Tennessee has a very short statute of limitations for negligence claims, so it’s important that you seek counsel immediately if you believe that you may have a wrongful death or personal injury claim.

It happens under the guise of “signing some papers” during admission into a Knoxville nursing home, convalescent center, hospital, or other medical center. The patient or his or her family member often has no idea of the ramifications of signing the pile of complex documents that are shoved in front of them during what is probably one of the most difficult days of their life.

Fortunately, not all such attempts to thwart the legal process are successful. In some cases, the court system refuses to grant the health care provider’s request to send the case to an arbitrator rather than have it rightfully proceed through the litigation process.

Facts of the Case

In a recently released opinion from a federal district court, the plaintiff was the mother of a man who allegedly died due to the mistreatment of the defendants, a nursing and rehabilitation facility and others. According to the plaintiff, she took the decedent to the defendant facility in late 2017. The decedent apparently resided there for about a year and a half. After being transferred to a hospital and then to another health care center, the decedent died in August 2019. According to the plaintiff, the decedent suffered physical injuries (including pressure sores), pain and suffering, and mental anguish while in the defendant facility’s care; the plaintiff further averred that the decedent’s injuries were the proximate result of the defendant’s negligence in caring for the decedent.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit included claims for “survival and wrongful death” on behalf of herself and other wrongful death beneficiaries. She sought compensation pursuant to the Tennessee Healthcare Liability Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 29-26-101, et seq and/or the provisions of Tennessee negligence law. The facility filed a motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims; it also sought a stay of the case pending resolution of said arbitration.

The Court’s Decision

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, denied the facility’s motion to compel arbitration. According to the court, the plaintiff did not have the legal authority to enter into the agreement to arbitrate on behalf of the decedent, nor could the facility bind the decedent to the agreement as a third-party beneficiary of the contract. Likewise, the court found that the plaintiff did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate in her personal capacity.

In so holding, the court noted that, under the Tennessee Heath Care Decisions Act, signing an agreement to arbitrate was a heath care decision. Under T.C.A. § 68-11-1806, a surrogate could only make such a decision on a patient’s behalf if the patient had been determined by a designated physician to lack capacity. Here, the decedent’s doctor did make such a decision, but the date of his signature was illegible. Because the court was not convinced that the doctor signed the surrogate form on a date prior to the plaintiff’s signing of the agreement to arbitrate, it found that the facility had failed to meet its burden of showing that the plaintiff had the authority to form a contract on the decedent’s behalf.

Insomuch as the plaintiff signed the relevant document only on the decedent’s behalf, the court also opined that no agreement to arbitrate had been formed on behalf of the plaintiff with regard to her individual claims.

Schedule a Consultation About a Nursing Home Abuse Case

If you believe that you or a loved one may have a nursing home abuse claim against a health care facility in the Knoxville area, please call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 and ask for an appointment to come in and discuss your situation. We handle cases throughout east Tennessee, including Maryville, Alcoa, Farragut, Seymour, Powell, Karns, Oak Ridge, Clinton, and the surrounding area.

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.

The patient or family member often has no idea that, by signing these admission papers, he or she is giving up the right to have a future personal injury or wrongful death case decided by a judge or jury. Instead, if a claim arises, the case will proceed in front of an arbitrator.

Arbitrators tend to be much more conservative in their awards – if they even agree that there was negligent or wrongful conduct on behalf of the nursing home or its employees – thus potentially saving the potential defendant and its insurance company a considerable amount of money in some cases. Fortunately, not every such “agreement” to arbitration is upheld in court.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case arising in the Circuit Court for Gibson County was the daughter of a woman who allegedly died as a result of the negligence of the defendant nursing home. After the plaintiff filed her wrongful death action against the defendant, the defendant sought to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claim. In its motion to compel, the defendant relied upon paperwork that the plaintiff had signed when the decedent had been admitted to the defendant’s care. According to the plaintiff, the decedent had been mentally incompetent at the time of her admission, and the decedent had not given the plaintiff power of attorney to act on her behalf.

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The defendant appealed.

The Appellate Tribunal’s Decision

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The court began its analysis by explaining that its review of a lower court’s ruling on a motion to compel arbitration was de novo on the record with a presumption of correctness. Only if the evidence preponderated against the lower court’s ruling would its decision be disturbed on appeal. For evidence to “preponderate” in such a situation, the evidence would have to support a different finding of fact with greater convincing effect.

The defendant argued that the enforceability of the arbitration agreement should have been decided by an arbitrator rather than by the court and that, in any event, the record supported a finding that the plaintiff had either actual or apparent authority to sign the agreement to arbitrate on behalf of the decedent. The appellate court disagreed with these contentions, concluding that the plaintiff had neither actual nor apparent authority to sign the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the appeals tribunal held that the plaintiff’s case could proceed in a court of law rather than in front of an arbitrator.

For Advice About a Nursing Home Abuse Case

The decision to place a loved one in a nursing home or assisted living center is always a difficult one. Such a decision requires a patient’s family to place a great deal of trust in those who own the nursing facility, as well as those who work directly with the patients. When that trust is broken, it can leave a family devastated and looking for answers to a great many questions. To talk to an attorney about pursing litigation against a nursing facility whose negligence or abuse you believe may have led to a loved one’s injury or wrongful death, call the Hartsoe Law Firm today at (865) 804-1011.

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.

Non-economic damages include such things as compensation for physical and emotional pain and suffering, loss of the ability to enjoy life, and loss of spousal consortium. Depending upon the law of the state in which the accident happened – and sometimes the particular claims upon which the plaintiff rests his or her case – there may be a maximum amount of damages available to the plaintiff, regardless of what his or her case would otherwise be worth.

When damages are capped in a case involving multiple defendants, disputes can arise regarding the amount that each defendant ultimately owes if the jury finds in the plaintiff’s favor. This can even be true in cases in which multiple defendants were sued but only a single defendant remained at the time of the trial.

Facts of the Case

The original plaintiffs in a recent case were a man who allegedly suffered mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos-containing materials at this workplace and the man’s wife, who joined in the suit to assert a claim for loss of consortium. They sought monetary compensation from several defendants, whom they alleged engaged in the mining, processing, manufacturing, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos, asbestos-containing products, and/or machinery that required or called for the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. After the male plaintiff died, the wife amended her complaint to assert a wrongful death action pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-5-106(a).

As the case developed toward trial, the wife settled with several defendants, and the trial court dismissed some of the other defendants on summary judgment. When only one defendant remained, that defendant filed a motion seeking clarification of the trial court’s intentions with regard to the handling of the state’s statutory cap for non-economic damages. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, with comparative fault being allocated among the remaining defendant, some of the dismissed defendants, and the decedent. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s application of the damages cap, the wife appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Although the amount of money that the wife received from the settling defendants was not disclosed in the court’s opinion, the jury’s verdict in her favor was substantial: $2,071,216.21, to be exact. The issue before the court revolved around how much of that verdict she would actually receive from the remaining defendant, given that $1,950,000 of the jury’s award was for non-economic damages and a statutory cap applied to such damages. Insomuch as the jury allocated 13% of the fault for the decedent’s death to the remaining defendant, the plaintiff argued that she was entitled to receive 13% of the $1,950,000 awarded by the jury for non-economic damages – an amount that was well within the capped amount.

The defendant argued, and the trial court ultimately held, that the wife was entitled to a different amount, one representing 13% of the statutory damage cap for non-economic damages plus the amount of economic damages awarded to her by the jury.

Contact an Injury Attorney in East Tennessee

If you have lost someone close to you because of another’s negligence, you may have grounds for a wrongful death claim. At the Hartsoe Law Firm, our team of experienced legal professionals are here to help you understand your rights with regard to an east Tennessee wrongful death case. For an appointment to learn more, call us at (865) 804-1011 or use the contact form on this website.

Obviously, the employer has an incentive to deny that the worker was “on the clock,” so to speak. However, simply denying the obvious will not go very far in avoiding a finding of liability for the employer.

In a recent case, both the employer and the employee (a father and son) denied that the employee was still acting on behalf of the employer when he crashed the employer’s car and killed a woman. Instead, they argued that the employee had planned to stop off and pick up a pizza, thereby deviating from his task and interrupting the chain of events that would have resulted in a finding of vicarious liability. Fortunately for the woman’ surviving spouse, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a case recently considered by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville was the surviving spouse of a woman who passed away in a motor vehicle accident in 2015. The plaintiff was also the administrator of the accident victim’s estate. He filed suit against the defendants, the driver of the at-fault vehicle and the owner of the vehicle, asserting claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium. The owner of the vehicle was the father and employer of the driver. The defendants resisted the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims against the father, asserting that, although the son had taken the father’s vehicle to run a business errand (to pick up a check) on the day in question, the son was no longer “on duty” at the time of the crash. In support of this contention, the son claimed that he had decided to pick up a pizza to take home to eat with his wife, rather than return to his place of employment with the check that he had picked up earlier in the day.

The Circuit Court for Rutherford County granted summary judgment to the father based on the affidavits and deposition testimony of the father and son on the issue of whether the son was acting in the course and scope of his employment when the crash occurred. The plaintiff appealed, seeking appellate review of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. At the hearing on summary judgment in the court below, the plaintiff argued that the evidence relied upon by the father, namely his testimony and that of his son, was insufficient to refute the prima facie evidence of vicarious liability created by Tenn. Code. Ann. §§ 50-10-311 and -312 insomuch as both the father and the son were interested witnesses. (The statute upon which the plaintiff relied stated that proof of ownership of a vehicle was prima facie evidence that the vehicle was being operated by the owner’s servant (here, the son) within the course and scope of the employment relationship.)

Although the trial court rejected this argument, the court of appeals agreed that resolution of this disputed issue of material fact was best left to the jury, rather than to pre-trial resolution on summary judgment. In so holding, the court acknowledged that the credibility of both the father and the son could be called into question given the circumstances of the case.

Discuss Your Car Accident Case With an Attorney

Losing a loved one is one of the most difficult things that a family can experience. Having to fight an at-fault party’s insurance company for a fair settlement or judgment of a wrongful death claim can compound the loss, but having an effective and hard-working legal advocate on your side can help. To schedule a free consultation to discuss your personal injury or wrongful death case with a seasoned attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 today.

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.

In such cases, the employee (or, in a fatal illness or accident case, the worker’s family) may be entitled to some alternative type of benefits following an accident or sickness caused by the worker’s conditions of employment, but such a suit may be pursued more in the nature of a Tennessee personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit than a “regular” worker’s compensation case. Some governmental entities’ work injury coverage is administered through a third-party administrator who makes the initial decision in the case. This may be reviewed by an administrative law judge, a chancellor or circuit court judge, and, eventually, the appellate court.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was the widow of a city fireman who passed away in 2015. At the time of his death, the decedent had worked for the city’s fire department for some 20 years. His pre-hire physical examine revealed no signs of hypertension or other heart disease. After having completed a 24-hour workday that required him to manage calls on five separate calls, the decedent passed away within 12 hours of leaving his post. The widow sought on-the-job-injury benefits for the fireman’s death. The defendant’s third-party administrator denied the widow’s claim on the basis that no autopsy had been performed on the decedent as was required under the city’s on-the-job injury policy.

The widow filed a petition for review in the Shelby County Chancery Court. The trial court entered an order voiding the city’s on-the-job-injury policy insofar as it required an autopsy to be submitted as a prerequisite to the payment of death benefits in the case at bar. According to the chancery court, this policy was in direct conflict with Tennessee Code Annotated § 7-51-201, which provided a presumption that the death of a firefighter caused by hypertension or heart disease occurred in the line of duty and in the course of his or her employment. The trial court then remanded the case to the administrative law judge for a new hearing, giving the judge specific instructions that the autopsy provision should not influence the proceedings in any way. The city appealed.

The Court’s Decision on the Issues

On appeal, the city argued that the trial court had erred in finding that its on-the-job-injury policy requirement of an autopsy was in conflict with the presumption statute. The Tennessee Court of Appeals disagreed with this contention and affirmed the chancery court judge’s ruling. According to the reviewing tribunal, the administrative law judge should have applied the presumption statute without consideration of the city’s policy requiring an autopsy.

This did not necessarily mean that the widow would receive death benefits, as she still had to prove that the fireman had been employed by a regular fire department, that he suffered from hypertension, heart disease, or a disease of the lungs, and that, prior to his injury or death, he had been given a medical exam that had not revealed lung disease, heart disease, or hypertension. If the widow made such a showing, she was entitled to a presumption that the fireman’s death was work-related. The burden then shifted to the city to offer competent medical evidence showing that there was no substantial connection between the fireman’s job and his injury or death.

Schedule an Appointment to Speak to a Lawyer About Your East Tennessee Personal Injury Case

The Hartsoe Law Firm handles many types of wrongful death cases in Knoxville and other cities in east Tennessee. To schedule a time to come in and tell us more about your loved one’s accident, call (865) 804-1011. There is no charge for the consultation, and we can travel to your home for the appointment if you need us to.

Statistically speaking, about three people lose their lives in car crashes in Tennessee each day. Far too many of these accidents are caused by distracted driving, including cell phone and smart phone usage. The problem isn’t just in Tennessee, of course. Nationally, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that over 3000 lives are lost annually in the United States because of distracted driving.

Distracted Driving is Extremely Dangerous

A driver can be distracted by many different things – carrying on a heated conversation with a passenger, eating or drinking, and applying cosmetics or engaging in other grooming (such as shaving) are all considered to be forms of distracted driving. However, the usage of electronic devices – especially smart phones, but also navigation systems, radios, and the like – is especially problematic.

Not only does engagement with an electronic device take a driver’s mind from the task at hand, it can also cause him or her to look at the device instead of the road. As a result, a driver can easily “drive blind” for a distance exceeding the length of a football field by just “glancing” at a single text. As any sports fan can tell you, a lot can happen in the length of a football field!

A distracted driver can run a stop sign or red light, causing a collision with someone approaching from a side street. The driver may fail to notice slowing or stopped traffic ahead, resulting in a rear-end collision. The car may begin to drift into the oncoming lane while the driver focuses his or her attention on the phone. Any of these situations can result in serious injuries or death.

What Tennessee Is Doing About Distracted Driving

Beginning earlier this year, the State of Tennessee has begun to crack down on those who endanger themselves and others by paying more attention to their phones than to the road. Under the state’s “Hands-Free Tennessee” law, it is now illegal for a driver to hold a cellular telephone (or other mobile device) with any part of his or her body. Drivers are also prohibited from writing, sending, or reading text messages; reaching for a phone in a way that results in him or her no longer being in a seated driving position; watching videos on cellphones; and/or recording video on a mobile device.

The purpose of the law is to decrease the number of distracted driving crashes in the state. According to promotional materials regarding the new law, Tennessee has the highest rate of distracted driving deaths in the country. Violation of the law is a Class C misdemeanor; fines increase with subsequent offenses, as well as in situations involving crashes or use of a device while in a work or school zone.

Have Questions for a Knoxville Attorney Regarding a Distracted Driving Crash

While the new law is a step in the right direction, it won’t end the epidemic of distracted driving accidents, nor will it provide compensation to those hurt in such accidents. In order to be paid for medical expenses, lost wages, and other losses caused by a distracted driver, an injured individual must file a claim against the responsible party. If you have been hurt by a driver who was on his or her phone, you should talk to a lawyer about seeking fair compensation. To schedule an appointment with an experienced east Tennessee car accident attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 for an appointment. We handle many different types of motor vehicle accident claims, as well as cases involving medical negligence or premises liability.

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.

Here in Tennessee, several attorneys general have sought to assert claims against those who make these and other opioid drugs, but of course the manufacturers have done their best to resist these efforts if at all possible.

Earlier this month, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a decision in one such matter, holding that a case previously dismissed by a state court judge could go forward against certain pharmaceutical companies under a state statute that provides a civil remedy against those who participate in the illegal drug trade. If you or a loved one is suffering from the use of such medications, a Tennessee personal injury attorney may be able to determine whether you have a claim.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were primarily district attorneys who sought to assert a cause of action against the defendant drug manufacturers and others under the Drug Dealer Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-38-101, -116, for injuries allegedly stemming from opioid drugs. Two minor children, through their guardian ad litem, also joined in the action as plaintiffs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.

The Circuit Court for Campbell County granting the motion, holding that the Act did not apply to manufacturers who lawfully produced drugs – only to those illegally involved in the drug trade – and that, thus, the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Decision of the Court

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, holding that the plaintiffs had alleged enough in their complaint to survive the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. According to the court of appeals, the defendants had failed in their efforts to show that there was no set of facts that could entitle the plaintiffs to the relief that they sought. While acknowledging that the manufacture of opioids was a legitimate endeavor and that there were perfectly sound medical applications for such drugs, the court’s interpretation of the Act was that a drug manufacturer could be held liable if it knowingly exceeded the boundaries of its regulated framework, as was alleged by the plaintiffs in the case at bar.

In so holding, the court rejected the defendants’ contention that they were exempt under the Act, noting that the plaintiffs’ complaint contained a “litany of allegations, some highly specific, as to [the defendants’] activities with regard to the diversion of opioids in Tennessee, as well as the destruction of communities caused by this diversion.”

Only time will tell whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail in their action, as the appellate court took no position as to whether the plaintiffs would be able to prove their allegations when the matter eventually proceeds to trial.

Speak to a Tennessee Personal Injury Attorney

At the Hartsoe Law Firm, our Tennessee personal injury attorneys help residents seek fair compensation for harm caused by the negligent and reckless conduct of corporations, governments, and individuals. To learn more about our services, call us at (865) 804-1011 and request a free consultation to dismiss your situation. We serve Knoxville, Maryville, and the surrounding area.

Tennessee also has a statute of repose that places additional limitations on the plaintiff in a personal injury or wrongful death case, including one stemming from injuries caused by exposure to asbestos. In some situations, an injured person may have been exposed to multiple sources of asbestos over a multi-year period, creating further issues that must be hashed out during the litigation process.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who developed mesothelioma after working at a chemical plant in east Tennessee for approximately 20 years. He (along with his wife) filed multiple product liability claims against the defendants (an asbestos manufacturer and others), asserting claims for the defendants’ respective alleged involvement in the male plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos in the workplace.

The trial court awarded summary judgment to the defendants, holding that plaintiffs’ claims against one defendant were time-barred under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 (2017), the plaintiffs’ claims against three defendants were time-barred under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103 (2012), several defendants affirmatively negated their alleged duty to warn, and the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence of causation with respect to some defendants. The plaintiffs appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville vacated all of the final judgments entered by the trial court. The court began by acknowledging the plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court had committed reversible error by its verbatim adoption of the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by some of the defendants; in the court’s opinion, however, any potential violations of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 by the trial court were moot in light of the appellate court’s overall opinion in the case.

The court went on to rule that the trial court had erred in siding with the defendants on the issue of the timeliness of the plaintiffs’ complaint, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact that had to be determined in order to resolve issues such as whether the defendant was entitled to assert a statute of repose defense.

With regard to the more substantive issue of whether it was erroneous for the trial court to grant summary judgment to all of the defendants, the court found that the expert testimony proffered by the plaintiffs was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether each of the defendants’ products was a substantial contributing factor and a proximate cause of the male plaintiff’s development of mesothelioma.

Experienced East Tennessee Personal Injury Attorney

If you have been hurt by a dangerous or defective product, seasoned Knoxville product liability attorney Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm can help. For a free consultation to learn more about our services, call us now at (865) 804-1011. As is evident from the court’s opinion in the opinion discussed above, time is of the essence in a personal injury case, so please to do delay in seeking legal advice about your potential claim.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in a recent case were the owners of a 10-year-old cat who allegedly died due to the negligence of the defendant veterinarians, who placed a feeding tube into the animal’s trachea rather than her esophagus, thus sending food into her lungs (instead of into her stomach, where it was supposed to go) and causing her to aspirate. The plaintiffs asserted a wrongful death action against the defendants, seeking compensation for their loss.

The defendants admitted that one of them had been negligent in the placement of the feeding tube, but they disputed the damages to which the plaintiffs were entitled. The trial court found in the defendants’ favor at trial, holding that the defendants should not be held legally liable for the animal’s wrongful death because she suffered from an illness which would probably have claimed her life anyway. According to the trial court, Tennessee did not recognize a cause of action for “loss of chance,” and there was a 79% mortality rate for the animal under the circumstances.

Decision on Appeal

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the trial court had erred in concluding that they had failed to prove causation in fact and in dismissing their claims against one of the veterinarians in her individual capacity. The Court of Appeal of Tennessee at Jackson agreed that the trial court had been in error as to certain issues. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for a determination of damages.

In so holding, the court of appeals noted that the evidence was undisputed that the plaintiff’s animal died as a result of being bed through the tube that was improperly placed in her trachea and that, in their responses to the plaintiffs’ requests for admissions, one of the defendants had admitted that the negligent placement of the feeding tube was the direct and proximate cause of the animal’s death. Thus, the plaintiffs had established but-for causation, despite the trial court’s decision to the contrary.

Under Tennessee law, a cat such as the one who passed away in this case is considered to be private property of his or her owners, and the owners were entitled to recover damages for the animal’s wrongful death. However, under Tennessee Code Annotated § 44-17-103, there is a $5000 cap on noneconomic damages and no noneconomic damages are permitted against a licensed veterinarian such as the defendants herein. On remand, the trial court was to determine the appropriate amount of economic damages due the plaintiffs, taking into consideration any monetary losses associated with their loss, such as medical bills incurred for the animals’s treatment and the cost of replacing the animal.

With regard to the issue of one of the veterinarian’s liability for negligence in her individual capacity, the appellate court agreed with the lower tribunal that there had been no evidence offered upon which that veterinary could be held personally liable.

Schedule a Consultation with a Tennessee Wrongful Death Attorney

If you have questions that you need to ask an experienced Tennessee personal injury and wrongful death attorney, please call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. We have offices in both Maryville and Knoxville.

Related Blog Posts According to Tennessee Court of Appeals, Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted in Wrongful Death Case Tennessee Court of Appeals Says Dismissal of Wrongful Death Suit Against Truck Stop Owners Was Premature

While a lawsuit cannot bring back the loved one, the monetary damages available through a wrongful death claim can help ease the financial burden caused by the loved one’s death, as well as send a powerful message to others who might be tempted to engage in such dangerous and potentially deadly conduct in the future.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was the mother of a woman who died on a camping trip. The mother filed suit against the defendants, “friends “of the decedent who participated in the camping trip, in the Circuit Court for DeKalb County, alleging that the defendants had caused the decedent’s death through negligence, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants had conspired to cover up the truth about how the decedent had passed away. The plaintiff sought compensation for the decedent’s wrongful death, as well as for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

One of the defendants filed an answer to the plaintiff’s complaint, invoking her Fifth Amendment right to refrain from self-incrimination and refusing to answer many of the plaintiff’s allegations. At some point thereafter, that defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. According to that defendant’s motion, the plaintiff had failed to alleged sufficient factual allegations to support her causes of actions and her action was barred by the comparative fault of the decedent. The trial court granted that defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Court’s Decision on Appeal

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville reversed and remanded, holding that, based upon its de novo review of the issues, summary judgment was improvidently granted. The court also addressed the lower court’s ruling with regard to its rulings on various other motions, including motions in limine and motions to strike.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings and related documents on file with the court show that there is not a genuine issue of material fact that needs to be resolved through a jury trial. In other words, a party must prove that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, based on the undisputed facts, in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion. Because the question of summary judgment is based on law, not on the facts, there is no presumption of correctness when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s grant (or refusal to grant) a motion for summary judgment.

In reversing the lower tribunal’s grant of summary judgment in the instant case, the court noted that the plaintiff had produced affidavits from several witnesses, including a private investigator and a law enforcement officer, both of whom opined that the decedent’s death was not accidental. The defendant had not offered any evidence to show that these experts’ opinions did not create a triable issue of fact.

Speak to an East Tennessee Wrongful Death Attorney

Losing a loved one is always tragic, but it is especially difficult on those left behind when the death didn’t have to happen. If you have lost a loved one because someone else acted carelessly or in a manner as to intentionally hurt your loved one, you may be able to seek financial compensation for your loved one’s death. To talk to an experienced Knoxville wrongful death attorney, call the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011. Please keep in mind that Tennessee has one of the shortest statutes of limitation for wrongful death in the entire nation, so do not delay in seeking legal advice.

Related Blog Posts Tennessee Court of Appeals Says Dismissal of Wrongful Death Suit Against Truck Stop Owners Was Premature Tennessee Supreme Court Says Husband Has Right to File Wrongful Death Lawsuit Despite Allegations of “Road Rage”

As in other types of negligence lawsuits, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant breached a legal duty that was owed to him or her and that this breach of duty was the proximate cause of damages complained of by the plaintiff.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a motorcyclist who was killed when his motorcycle collided with a sport utility vehicle in 2016. At the time of the crash, the SUV driver was turning left into a truck stop. The plaintiff filed suit against the driver of the SUV and the owners of the truck stop, seeking to recover damages for her husband’s wrongful death. According to the plaintiff, the truck stop owners were negligent in failing to place a visible sign directing the plaintiff to the proper entrance for passenger vehicles (the SUV driver was turning into an entrance intended for semi-trailer trucks, not passenger vehicles; the plaintiff averred that the truck entrance had a much more limited view of oncoming traffic).

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint against the truck stop owners, holding that they owed no duty to the traveling public to provide signs directing drivers into or out of their place of business.

Decision of the Court

The plaintiff argued on appeal that the trial court had been in error in holding that the defendant truck stop owners owed no legal duty to her. Rather, the plaintiff argued that the truck stop owners had created a hazardous condition by failing to place a prominent and clearly visible sign at the truck entrance and that this created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm.

Because the court of appeals believed that a balancing test was required in order to determine whether the truck stop owner owed a duty to the plaintiff’s husband under the circumstances, it agreed that the trial court had been wrong to dismiss the case on summary judgment. Because dismissal of the complaint had been premature, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. According to the court, the plaintiff had posed a question of law that could not be determined “at this stage” of the proceedings.

Schedule an Appointment with a Seasoned Tennessee Truck Accident Attorney

Accidents involving motorcycles tend to be much more serious, and all too often fatal, as compared to other motor vehicle collisions. If you have been hurt or lost a loved one due to motorcycle accident caused by another’s negligence, the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., can help. To schedule a free consultation with a helpful east Tennessee motorcycle accident attorney, call us at (865) 804-1011. We have offices in both Knoxville and Maryville. Please do not delay in seeking legal advice, as claims not filed by the statute of limitations will likely be dismissed regardless of their merits.

Related Blog Post Sevierville Man Killed, Knoxville Woman Hurt in Negligent Motorcycle Wreck on Chapman Highway Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville Does Not Allow a Remittitur of 70% or More in Motorcycle Accident Case

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

Cases against doctors and medical providers can be very challenging, so it is important to consult with an experienced medical negligence attorney if your find yourself (or a close family member) the victim of a medical error.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case arising in Hamilton County, Tennessee, the plaintiffs were the parents of a minor child who suffered permanent injuries during his birth. These injuries left the child with only partial use of one of his arms, as well as other complications. The parents filed suit against the health services provider for whom the delivering obstetrician was employed, alleging that the doctor had been negligent during the delivery. Their allegations also included an accusation that the doctor used a vacuum extractor without first obtaining the plaintiffs’ informed consent.

The case was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. The trial court then ordered the plaintiffs to pay $81,343 to the defendant as reimbursement for the costs of defending the litigation. The plaintiff appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville vacated the trial court’s judgment upon the jury’s verdict and remanded the case to the lower tribunal for further proceedings. According to the appellate court, the trial court committed a reversible error when it allowed testimony in violation of Tennessee’s “collateral source rule” pertaining to the payment of medical expenses or other costs by a third party (such as an insurance company or a public school via the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

The trial court had placed great emphasis on the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had characterized the penalty for not having health insurance as a “tax, ” but the appeals court found that the characterization of the federal penalty for not carrying health insurance (in violation of the Affordable Care Act) was irrelevant to the question of whether evidence of a plaintiff’s health insurance should be presented to the trier of fact.

The court also found that the trial court had acted improperly when it issued a pretrial, blanket order regarding argument by analogy. The court also noted that “foreseeability, not foresight” is an essential element of the duty of due care in a tort case.

Contact a Tennessee Injury Law Attorney

A doctor’s mistake can result in a lifetime of pain and financial hardship on the victim. This is especially true in cases in which an infant is harmed during the birth process. If you have recently had a baby that suffered unexpected complications due to a medical mistake during labor and delivery, you should talk to a lawyer about the process of holding the negligent health care providers liable. At the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., we handle birth injury and other medical malpractice cases. For a free consultation, call us now at (865) 804-1011.

Related Blog Posts Tennessee Court of Appeals Reverses Judgment for Defendant in Medical Malpractice Case, Saying “Sudden Emergency” Instruction Should Not Have Been Given Tennessee Law Allows Additurs in Medical Malpractice Cases, But They Are Subject to Review on Appeal

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