Medical Malpractice

Published on: June 21, 2017

Tennessee Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Health Care Liability Case, Holding that Statute of Repose Was Extended by Child’s Pre-Suit Notice

Medical negligence can leave victims with permanent injuries and, in some cases, even result in a wrongful death.

In a recent case, both a mother and her newborn child were seriously injured due to the alleged negligence of a doctor and others during the child’s birth.

Unfortunately, their claims were not filed within the applicable statute of limitations period (which is quite short in Tennessee) due to their alleged disabilities, and the court of appeals was asked to consider whether their cases met one of the small handful of exceptions to the general rule requiring the dismissal of untimely lawsuits.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 7, 2017

Tennessee Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment on Parents’ Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim Following Child’s Death from Alleged Medical Malpractice

By Mark Hartsoe

Septic shock is a very dangerous, potentially life-threatening medical condition that can occur when the body attempts to fight a bacterial, fungal, or viral infection. Possible complications from septic shock include heart failure, kidney failure, stroke, liver failure, or respiratory failure.

Although septic shock can be fatal, a patient’s prognosis is better if the condition is promptly diagnosed and properly treated. Time is of the essence, and any delay can hurt a patient’s chances of recovery.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 24, 2017

Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds that Case Alleging EMT Struck Patient in the Face Did Not Require a Certificate of Good Faith Before Filing

By Mark Hartsoe

In Tennessee, there are certain procedural hurdles that must be addressed in filing a cause of action under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act.

Failing to comply with these requirements can result in the dismissal of an otherwise valid claim against an allegedly negligent health care provider.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 17, 2017

Tennessee Court of Appeals Vacates Summary Judgment to Defendants Who Allegedly Prevented Effective Service of Process on Medical Malpractice Defendant

By Mark Hartsoe

Filing a lawsuit for medical malpractice or another act of negligence can be fraught with potential procedural pitfalls: missing a statute of limitations, naming the wrong party as a defendant, or – as happened in a recent case – an allegation that the person who accepted service of process on the defendant was unauthorized to do so.

In some instances, a procedural misstep can result in the dismissal of an otherwise valid claim against a defendant purely on technical grounds. However, the plaintiffs in one case were determined to have their day in court, filing a second lawsuit against the allegedly unauthorized person who accepted service of process, causing their malpractice case to be dismissed as to a certain doctor.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 21, 2016

Tennessee Court of Appeals Decides that Doctor Was Not Entitled to Summary Judgment in Medical Negligence Case – Holmes v. Christ Community Health Services, Inc.

By Mark Hartsoe

Under Tennessee law, the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit must prove four elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. If the negligence action sounds in medical malpractice, the plaintiff is required to provide expert testimony as to the standard of care (duty) element. Purportedly, this is to aid the jury in determining complex issues with which they may not be familiar.

A failure to provide expert testimony usually results in the dismissal of a medical malpractice plaintiff’s claim, except in the most obvious of cases (such as a medical instrument left inside the patient’s body).

Continue reading →

Published on: June 24, 2015

Appeals Court Vacates Order Dismissing Wife’s Loss of Consortium Claim With Prejudice in Tennessee Medical Malpractice Case

By Mark Hartsoe

In Igou v. Vanderbilt University, a man filed a medical care liability action against a Tennessee hospital over the injury he allegedly sustained as a result of a surgical procedure that was performed at the facility. According to the man, he was rendered impotent as a result of his surgeon’s error. Prior to filing his case, the man provided the hospital with notice of his claim in accordance with Section 29-26-121 of the Tennessee Code. When the man formally filed his complaint, he provided the court with a certificate of good faith under Section 29-26-122. In addition, the man’s wife filed a loss of consortium claim. She did not provide notice of her claim under the requirements enumerated in the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (“THCLA”).

Continue reading →

Published on: December 11, 2013

Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville Limits Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Case — Ike J. White, III v. David A. Beeks, M.D.

By Mark Hartsoe

Last week a Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a ruling limiting expert testimony in an informed consent case. A failure to obtain informed consent is a type of medical malpractice case where a medical professional breached his or her duty of care by failing to get consent from a patient to perform a medical procedure that caused the patient harm. if you have been injured by a medical procedure, you should contact a medical malpractice attorney.

The requirement that a physician obtain informed consent emanates from the ethical principle in medicine to protect the privacy and personal autonomy of an individual patient. A medical professional must inform patients of their medical diagnosis, the nature and reasons for obtaining a medical procedure, and the risks involved with the procedure. Unless there are special circumstances, a physician may not treat a patient without first obtaining his or her consent. If a patient is injured and the medical professional failed to get informed consent, the patient has grounds for a medical malpractice case.

A medical practitioner does not need to disclose every tiny detail or possible risk involved in a medical procedure. However, the medical professional must disclose the risks and information that a reasonable physician in the same practice and under the same circumstances would have disclosed. In order to prove what a reasonable physician would disclose, the patient can bring expert testimony from another medical professional. The question before the court was whether the plaintiff’s expert at trial should have been allowed give testimony covering all the risks involved in a procedure or only those risks that actually resulted in an injury.
Continue reading →