Uncategorized

March 14, 2026

Legal malpractice claim time-barred.

Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim against the attorneys who drafted her fiancé’s will accrued when she filed an answer to the will contest brought by the fiancé’s surviving relatives.

In LaChappelle v. Tual, No. W2024-01234-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2025), the plaintiff had hired defendant attorneys to draft a will for her fiancé while the fiancé was in the hospital in Tennessee. The fiancé later died, and after the plaintiff filed a petition to probate the will drafted by the defendants, the fiancé’s brother and father filed a complaint to set aside the will based on the failure to comply with certain Mississippi requirements. The plaintiff filed an answer in the will contest case on May 10, 2021.

The plaintiff eventually lost the will contest case, and an earlier will was probated. The plaintiff filed this legal malpractice claim against the defendants as a beneficiary of her fiancé’s will. The legal malpractice complaint was filed on September 14, 2023, but the plaintiff and the defendants had entered a tolling agreement in July 2022. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing that the legal malpractice claim accrued no later than May 2021. The one-year statute of limitations had therefore expired before the tolling agreement, so the tolling agreement “did not affect the timeliness of [the plaintiff’s] complaint.” The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

March 8, 2026

Tennessee Medical Malpractice Trial Statistics – 2024-2025

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

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts has released data on HCLA (medical malpractice) cases in Tennessee for the one-year period ending June 30, 2025. Data for other torts is summarized here.

Here are the highlights:

There were 324 HCLA cases filed in the year.

March 8, 2026

Tennessee Tort Statistics 2024-25

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

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts has released data on tort cases in Tennessee for the one-year period ending June 30, 2025. Medical malpractice (HCLA) data is reported separately.

Some highlights:

There were 10,980 tort claims filed for the entire year. The number of filings have been basically flat for the last eight years (although they dropped slightly during the pandemic).

July 15, 2025

HCLA expert failed to satisfy locality rule.

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

An expert witness in an HCLA case who admittedly did not know any information about the hospital that administered treatment, including what services it offered or its size, and had never spoken to anyone who worked there or been there in person, did not satisfy the locality rule.

In Bowen v. Nelson, No. W2024-00749-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2025), the plaintiff filed an HCLA action based on her treatment and the transfer process at Jackson-Madison County General Hospital. The plaintiff identified Dr. Jim as her standard of care and causation expert. In his deposition, Dr. Jim stated that he had spent many years working at a hospital in St. Lous, Missouri. When questioned about his familiarity with the hospital where the plaintiff was treated, he admitted to knowing very little. He did not know the population of the city, did not know how many beds were in the hospital (and guessed very inaccurately), and did not know what services the hospital offered. He stated that he had never spoken to anyone who worked at the hospital or visited the hospital.

Based on this testimony, the defendants filed a motion to exclude Dr. Jim pursuant to the locality rule, as well as a motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s inability to prove the necessary elements of her HCLA claim by expert proof. The trial court granted both motions, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

December 4, 2024

Discoverability of Surveillance Films

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

On Wednesday, December 4, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court heard an oral argument about the ability of a plaintiff to discover surveillance films a defendant took. Here is how the Court described the background of the case:

Plaintiffs/Appellants Teresa and Randy Locke filed a health care liability action alleging that Defendants/Appellees negligently performed a surgery on Ms. Locke’s colon. While the case was pending, Defendants hired a private investigator to take surveillance videos of the Plaintiffs in an attempt to show that Ms. Locke was exaggerating her injuries. Thereafter, the Defendants expressed their intention to use some of the surveillance footage at trial. The Plaintiffs sought to obtain all the private investigator’s surveillance videos, including those that the Defendants did not intend to use at trial. The trial court rejected the Plaintiffs’ request under the work-product doctrine, requiring the Defendants to produce only the videos they intend to use at trial. The Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in shielding the surveillance videos from discovery and affirmed the trial court’s decision to limit production to the videos that the Defendants intended to use at trial. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs’ application for permission to appeal to determine whether a litigant has a “substantial need” under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(3) to obtain surveillance footage collected in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial when the party who conducted the surveillance designates some, but not all, of the surveillance footage for use at trial.

The oral argument is being conducted at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee, as part of the Court’s SCALES program. It begins at 9:00 a.m. and will be live-streamed on the Court’s YouTube channel.

October 18, 2024

Savings statute measured from dismissal of first tort complaint.

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

A third complaint filed more than one year after dismissal of the original complaint did not fall within the savings statute and was time barred.

In Abdou v. Brown, No. 2023-01593-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2024), plaintiff filed a complaint alleging several tort claims, including assault, battery, and trespass. This was the third complaint alleging these claims against the same defendant. The first complaint was filed in July 2017 and voluntarily dismissed in September 2019. The second complaint was filed in October 2019 and voluntarily dismissed in September 2022. This third complaint was filed in September 2023.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The trial court granted dismissal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

September 24, 2024

Hickman County Tort Case Statistics and Outcomes – July 1, 2017- June 30, 2023

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

The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Hickman County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.

BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.

Click on the link for more information on the Hickman County court system.

September 18, 2024

Government Road Not Responsible for Wreck

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

Summary judgment based on immunity under the GTLA was reversed where plaintiff was injured when he had a car accident due a road washout.

In Roberts v. Carter, No. W2023-01316-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2023), plaintiff was driving during rain when he had an accident caused by a washed out road. The speed limited for this road was 45 miles per hour, but plaintiff had slowed to 25 miles per hour before the accident. Although the area had sustained heavy rains, plaintiff left his home while it was not raining, but the rain resumed while he was driving. His visibility was thus reduced.

Three weeks before this accident, a county employee noted the presence of erosion at the outlet end of the culvert on this road. The county corrected this problem by “laying down riprap stone on the outlet end.” Plaintiff’s accident occurred at the opposite inlet end of this same culvert.

July 1, 2024

July 1 – Effective Date for New Rules of Procedure and Evidence

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

July 1, 2024 is the effective date for changes to the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence.

That is why I created a new book that contains the up-to-date Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence (Courtroom Edition). It has the rules you need on motion day or in trial, and no other rules that only add only bulk. Who needs to haul the Tennessee Supreme Court rules, the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, etc. to a trial court? No one.

The book is in a 6 x 9 format. It uses a larger font that other rule books and is printed on white paper to make it easier to read. It weighs less than 20 oz. and is only 3/4″ deep. It is easily fits in your briefcase or bag.

June 19, 2024

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence 2024-2025 – Courtroom Edition

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

Who needs to haul the Tennessee Supreme Court rules, the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, etc. to a trial court? No one.

That is why I created a new book that contains only the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence (Courtroom Edition). It has the rules you need on motion day or in trial, and no other rules that only add only bulk.

The Courtroom Edition includes rule changes effective July 1, 2024.