Civil Procedure

January 15, 2016

Expert Rejected. Motion to Continue Rejected. Case Dismissed.

In a case that could have only arisen in Shelby County, Weatherspoon v. Minard, No. W2015-01099-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision to dismiss a health care liability claim after excluding the plaintiff’s expert witness five days before trial.

The alleged negligence occurred in 1998, and this case had been pending in different forms for over fifteen years. After defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in 2009 on the basis that plaintiff did not have a standard of care expert, plaintiff responded and provided the affidavit of Dr. Evans. Defendant served a notice of deposition for Dr. Evans on May 22, 2013, with the deposition to occur one week later. “The notice requested that [plaintiff] ensure Dr. Evans produced certain documents at the deposition, including those related to the income he earned as an expert witness.” Dr. Evans failed to provide this information at his deposition, and continued to refuse to do so, even after the trial court granted defendant’s motion to compel production pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum.

The trial was set for February 2, 2015. On January 13^th, counsel for defendant appeared at Dr. Evans’s office per the subpoena, but was told that Dr. Evans was not there and that counsel “did not have permission to be on the property.” Three days later, defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Evans based on his refusal to provide these financial documents. The trial court heard arguments on January 28^th and granted defendant’s motion excluding Dr. Evans. Because Dr. Evans was plaintiff’s only standard of care expert, and because standard of care must be proven by expert testimony in an HCLA case, the court dismissed plaintiff’s case.

January 11, 2016

HIPAA-Compliant Authorization Still Required where Defendant is only Health Care Provider at Issue

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The HIPAA release required by the Health Care Liability Act and the standards for HIPAA compliance continue to be a litigated issues in this evolving area of Tennessee law.

In Bray v. Khuri, No. W2015-00397-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2015), plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a patient who committed suicide while admitted to a hospital under defendant doctor’s care. Before filing suit, plaintiff sent a notice letter and a medical authorization form to defendant. Once plaintiff filed her complaint, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff failed to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) because the authorization provided “did not include a description of the information to be used and it failed to identify which health care providers were authorized to make the requested disclosure.” Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss, asserting that she did not have to provide a HIPAA-compliant authorization since the only health care provider at issue was defendant, and that “the form she provided was not deficient when read in conjunction with the potential claim letter accompanying it.” The trial court agreed with defendant, dismissing plaintiff’s claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The first issue on appeal was whether plaintiff was required to provide defendant with a HIPAA-compliant authorization when defendant “was the only medical provider being sent the notice of potential claim.” In support of her argument that no medical authorization was required here, plaintiff pointed to the language of the statute, which states that a plaintiff’s written notice “shall include…[a] HIPAA compliant medical authorization permitting the provider receiving the notice to obtain complete medical records from each other provider being sent a notice.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). Plaintiff asserted that “the inclusion of the phrase ‘from each other provider’ signals that it is unnecessary to include an authorization when only one provider is receiving the notice because that provider already has all the relevant records in its possession.”

January 2, 2016

2016 Rule Package Released

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has sent a package of rule changes to the Tennessee General Assembly for review. The proposed changes will be sent to the judiciary committee in each house. Click on the link to see the proposals.

December 29, 2015

Plaintiff Who Turned Left on Red 50% at Fault as Matter of Law

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Hall v. Owens, No. W2014-02214-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2015), the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff ran a red light and turned in front of defendant’s truck. As plaintiff approached an intersection, he had a red arrow for turning left. Defendant was approaching the same intersection driving a tractor-trailer truck, and defendant had a green light. Despite the red arrow, plaintiff proceeded into the intersection and turned left, at which time he was hit by defendant’s truck and severely injured.

Plaintiff sued defendant and his employer for negligence, asserting that defendant’s negligence was the “direct and proximate cause of the collision.” Defendant moved for summary judgment, relying heavily on the footage of the accident from two traffic cameras. Based on the footage, two experts for defendant testified that defendant was driving approximately 52 miles per hour in the 55 mile per hour zone. Further, it was undisputed that defendant had a green light and plaintiff had a red arrow. It was also undisputed that defendant’s truck was well-illuminated and visible.

In response to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted expert testimony from an accident reconstructionist asserting that defendant was traveling 60-65 miles per hour, and that defendant had “six to nine seconds of clear visibility of [plaintiff’s] car.” In light of the evidence, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that “no reasonable minds could find anything other than the fact that [plaintiff’s] actions in driving that morning of the accident constituted negligence, and negligence per se, and that his actions were the proximate cause of the accident, at least to the extent of 50% of fault.” The trial court further found that plaintiff’s expert’s testimony regarding defendant’s speed was “fundamentally flawed” in that it failed to consider several relevant factors.

December 9, 2015

Judge Must Give Basis for Summary Judgment Decision

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

A recent Tennessee premises liability case reiterated that a trial court cannot grant summary judgment “without making findings of fact or stating the legal basis for its decision.” In McEarl v. City of Brownsville, No. W2015-00077-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2015), plaintiff alleged that while walking from a private home to a public parking area maintained by the city, he was injured when he “stepped into a leaf-filled gutter running between the yard and the parking area.” The city moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. After asking both parties questions at the hearing, the trial judge stated: “I don’t think—I don’t think the City is responsible here. I’m granting [the defendant’s] motion.” The trial judge instructed defendant to prepare an order, and the order eventually entered contained several findings of fact regarding lack of duty and foreseeability.

On appeal, the Court vacated the order granting summary judgment due to the trial court’s failure to make findings of fact and state a legal basis for its decision before asking the defendant to submit a proposed order. The Court relied on Smith v. UHS v. Lakeside, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 303 (Tenn. 2014), where the Tennessee Supreme Court “made clear that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04’s directive that ‘the trial court shall state the legal grounds upon which the court denies or grants the motion which shall be included in the order reflecting the court’s ruling’ is mandatory.” In Smith, “the court concluded that Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 requires the trial court, upon granting or denying a motion for summary judgment, to state the grounds for its decision before it invites or requests the prevailing party to draft a proposed order.”

Here, the trial court “provided no factual findings or legal grounds for its decision[.]” The Court of Appeals noted that it was “essentially asked to conduct an archaeological dig into the transcript…in order to determine what the court’s comments and questions indicate about its state of mind during the proceeding.” Finding that it had “no ability to know what the court’s actual grounds were when it made its oral ruling,” the Court of Appeals vacated the order and remanded the case.

November 19, 2015

Summary Judgment Reversed in Conversion Case

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Garner v. Coffee County Bank, No. M2014-01956-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2015), the Court of Appeals partially overturned a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on several claims, including the torts of conversion and trespass to chattels.

Plaintiff and his former wife had purchased a home together, but wife moved out in 2009, taking her belongings with her. The home and its contents were damaged by fire in 2010. Wife was named on the insurance policy, so the checks from the insurer were made to both plaintiff and wife. The checks were for home damage, property loss and living expenses. Plaintiff believed that wife was not entitled to any of the proceeds for personal property loss and living expenses, since wife was not living at the home at the time and did not have any of her belongings there. According to plaintiff, however, the president of the bank where the home mortgage was held told plaintiff that he could not cash the checks and get any money unless he gave wife half of the proceeds. Plaintiff averred that, feeling coerced, he gave wife half the proceeds, and that money was used to pay down wife’s separate loan from the bank. The bank ultimately foreclosed on plaintiff’s home, and plaintiff filed suit for conversion, trespass to chattels, and conspiracy, among other causes of action.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff, however, failed to file any response to the summary judgment motion until after the time required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.03, and the trial court refused to use its discretion to excuse this delay. While the court acknowledged that plaintiff had been sick in the days leading up to the hearing and that could have affected his ability to sign his affidavit, it also pointed out that no other papers not requiring plaintiff’s signature and no motion for an extension of time were filed. Accordingly, plaintiff’s late-filed responsive documents were not considered in the summary judgment decision.

October 30, 2015

Tennessee Supreme Court Overturns Hannan Summary Judgment Standard

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

This week, the Tennessee Supreme Court overruled Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008), “return[ing] to a summary judgment standard consistent with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

In Rye v. Women’s Care Center of Memphis, PLLC, No. W2013-00804-R11-CV (Oct. 26, 2015), plaintiff had Rh negative blood, and defendant failed to test and subsequently treat her with a specific injection during her third pregnancy. Because she was not treated, plaintiff became Rh-sensitized. The record contained extensive testimony regarding the risks to plaintiff and to any future pregnancies. Essentially, regarding future children, the evidence showed that if several contingencies occurred—“a future pregnancy, an Rh positive fetus, antibodies crossing the placenta—it [was] undisputed that the unborn fetus would face a number of risks, ranging from mild to severe.” Because plaintiff and her husband were Catholic, they asserted that they were limited in what steps they could take to avoid future pregnancies. Regarding the harm or risks to plaintiff herself, plaintiff’s own expert testified that the risk to her was that if she had an emergency situation and needed blood, the transfusion process could be longer because finding a match for sensitized blood could take more time.

Plaintiffs’ complaint asserted causes of action for health care liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) for both plaintiff and her husband, and disruption of family planning. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs had “no existing actual injuries or damages resulting from the deviation,” that plaintiffs had “failed to allege future injuries to a reasonable medical certainty,” and that plaintiffs did not properly support their NIED claims. The trial court granted summary judgment as to all claims “for future damages to [plaintiff] arising from blood transfusions or future pregnancies,” finding that those damages had “yet to be sustained” and were speculative. The trial court also granted summary judgment on husband’s NIED claim, as he had not suffered physical injury and had not offered the required expert proof for an emotional distress action. Finally, the trial court granted summary judgment as to plaintiff’s “independent cause of action for disruption of family planning,” finding that Tennessee did not recognize such a claim. The court, however, denied summary judgment on plaintiff wife’s NIED claim, ruling that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the change in her blood constituted a physical injury and also holding that she would be allowed to present evidence regarding how her family plans had changed as an element of her damages.

October 22, 2015

Circumstantial Evidence and Summary Judgment

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Jenkins v. Big City Remodeling, No. E2014-01612-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015), plaintiffs had hired defendant general contractor to construct a home for them. General contractor, in turn, had hired defendant flooring subcontractor for the project. When the home was almost complete, it caught fire and resulted in a total loss. Plaintiffs sued the general contractor and subcontractor for negligence, including negligence based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment as to the general contractor but reversed as to the claim of negligence against the flooring subcontractor.

The facts established that the day before the fire, the owners had been in the home, and they had retained a key during construction. Further, the construction site was not fenced or otherwise blocked from public access. When the fire occurred, one of the only remaining projects was to stain the wood floors in the home. On the day of the fire, several subcontractors had been working on the house, including Julian Luu, who was working on the floor stain. Based on camera footage from a neighboring property, Mr. Luu was the last person to leave the property at around 6:10 p.m., and the fire started around 7:50 p.m.

Plaintiffs’ theory was that the flooring subcontractors, who had been known to smoke a lot on the site, “allowed flammable rags to remain on or near the exterior deck and also smoked cigarettes in the area.” Plaintiffs claimed that “the improper disposal of cigarette butts resulted in the stain-soaked rags igniting, causing the fire.” Although the fire destroyed any evidence of rags, buckets with staining rags and cigarette butts were found in a dumpster on the property. Plaintiffs’ expert testified that “he believed the fire began on the exterior deck,” but the expert admitted that he could not be certain and that he could not conclusively rule out arson or electrical problems.

October 16, 2015

Constitutional Challenge to Damage Cap Must Award Verdict

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutionality of the artifical cap on non-economic damages in tort cases should not be examined by the courts until after a plaintiff receives a verdict in excess of the cap.

The decision comes in the Clark case out of Chattanooga. The trial judge in that case ruled that the caps were unconstitutional. Tennesssee’s High Court said the ruling was premature. The Order can be reviewed by clicking on the link below

From a practical standpoint, this means that a supreme court review of the caps is at least two years off. Why? Because that is how long it takes, on average, from a verdict to go through the entire appellate process. It is possible that a case with a verdict over the caps is in the pipeline right now but I have not heard of such a pending case. Please let me know via a comment if you are aware of one.

October 13, 2015

Statute Trumps Court Decision – “Ordinary” Negligence Claims Essentially Gone in Medical Malpractice Cases

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Supreme Court just issued an important decision regarding how to decide whether a claim falls under the Health Care Liability Act (HCLA) or ordinary negligence. In Ellithorpe v. Weismark, No. M2014-00279-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015), the Court held that the previous nuanced approach detailed in Estate of French v. Stratford House, 33 S.W.3d 546 (Tenn. 2011) had been abrogated by the HCLA amendments passed by the Tennessee legislature in 2011, and that the definition contained in the HCLA is now the authority under which a court should determine whether a claim falls under the HCLA.

In Ellithorpe, plaintiffs were the biological parents of a minor child but had lost custody of the child. The custodian arranged for and/or permitted defendant social worker to provide counseling to the child without the parents’ knowledge or consent. When the parents found out about the counseling, they brought this claim against defendant social worker. It was undisputed that the parents did not give pre-suit notice or file a certificate of good faith pursuant to the HCLA.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on parents’ failure to comply with the HCLA, to which parents responded that their claims sounded in ordinary negligence. The trial court, however, granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint, verbally ruling that “the THCLA was very broad and encompassed Parents’ claims because they related to the provision of health care services by a health care provider as those terms are defined by statute.”