Day on Torts

            In Smith v. Testerman, No. E2014-00956-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. March 10, 2015), the Court of Appeals recently took up the issue of whether a case sounds in ordinary negligence or health care liability. After a hernia repair, plaintiff developed an infection requiring additional surgery to place a wound vacuum and a sponge. One defendant was allegedly tasked with changing the sponge as necessary, and another of the defendants was charged with removing the sponge at the appropriate time. When the wound vacuum was removed the sponge was not, eventually leading the wound to burst.  Plaintiff sued defendants alleging that they “were negligent by failing to either remove the sponge or communicate with the other physicians to ensure that the sponge had been removed.”

            Defendant filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the claims fell under the Health Care Liability Act (“HCLA”) and that plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements thus necessitated dismissal of the case. Plaintiff responded that he was claiming only ordinary negligence and was therefore not required to comply with the HCLA. Plaintiff asserted that “the fact that the alleged malpractice lies within the common knowledge of laypersons” and therefore did not require expert testimony was proof that the claim sounded in ordinary negligence.

            The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals granted interlocutory appeal to address “[w]hether an action seeking compensatory damages for injuries sustained as a result of a foreign object having been left in the patient’s body following surgery is a ‘health care liability action’ as defined by the [HCLA], such that the mandatory presuit provisions set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 apply.”

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(f) allows defendants in a Tennessee medical malpractice (now called healthcare liability) case to petition the court for a “qualified protective order allowing the defendant…and their attorneys the right to obtain protected health information during interviews, outside the presence of claimant or claimant’s counsel, with the relevant patient’s treating ‘healthcare providers[.]’” The section goes on to specifically list four conditions placed on these interviews: (1) that the petition identify healthcare providers the defendant seeks to interview; (2) that plaintiff may object and seek to limit or prohibit the interview, which “may be granted upon good cause shown that a treating healthcare provider does not possess relevant information[;]” (3) that the protective order should limit the use/dissemination of the information and provide for its return or destruction after the litigation; and (4) that the protective order expressly states that a healthcare provider’s participation in such interview is voluntary.[1] In two almost identical recent cases, the Court of Appeals took up the issue of whether a trial court may place additional conditions or restraints on these interviews.

In both Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, No. W2014-00625-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015) and S.W. v. Baptist Memorial Hosp., No. W2014-00621-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015), plaintiffs filed health care liability claims against defendants for alleged professional negligence. At issue in these appeals were the ex parte interviews defendants wanted to conduct with plaintiffs’ treating physicians without plaintiffs or their counsel present. Both sets of defendants moved for qualified protective orders to conduct these interviews, pursuant to § 29-26-121(f), which plaintiffs opposed. The trial courts granted the qualified protective order for the interviews but ultimately placed eight conditions on the interviews in both cases:

(1) That participation by healthcare providers in the interviews was voluntary;

         The interplay between the saving statute and the 120-day extension provided by the HCLA in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c) continues to be a hotly litigated topic, with the Tennessee Court of Appeals adding another opinion to the mix this week. In 2013, the Supreme Court held that transitional plaintiffs (those whose initial suits were filed before the pre-suit notice requirement was enacted but who nonsuited and re-filed after the pre-suit notice requirement went into effect), who were required to give pre-suit notice before re-filing their lawsuit, were entitled to the 120-day extension even though they were filing their second suit pursuant to the saving statute instead of the traditional statute of limitation. Rajvongs v. Wright, 432 S.W.3d 808 (Tenn. 2013). Then just a month ago, the Supreme Court held that the HCLA “requires that plaintiffs provide pre-suit notice to prospective health care defendants each time a complaint is filed,” meaning that a plaintiff who gives proper notice, nonsuits, then re-files must give a second notice before the re-filing of the claims, even if the claims are identical. Foster v. Chiles, 2015 WL 343872 (Tenn. Jan. 27, 2015). Now, in Tinnel v. East Tenn. Ear, Nose, and Throat Specialists, P.C., No. E2014-00906-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2015), the Court of Appeals has interpreted these prior cases to find that a plaintiff who nonsuits an HCLA case and then gives proper notice and re-files is entitled to the 120-day extension on the re-filed complaint.

            In Tinnel, plaintiff suffered an injury during an outpatient procedure resulting in blindness in one eye. The procedure was performed on February 3, 2009. Plaintiff gave proper pre-suit notice on May 19, 2009, then filed suit on February 3, 2010. On December 14, 2010, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the first lawsuit. Subsequently, on October 18, 2011 and within one year of the nonsuit, plaintiff provided a second set of pre-suit notices to defendants. Plaintiff filed her second suit on April 3, 2012, which was more than a year from the date of her previous nonsuit but within the time that would be included if the 120-day extension were applied. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the second suit was not timely.

            Plaintiff argued that the reasoning the Supreme Court used in Rajvongs should not be confined to transitional plaintiffs and should apply to provide her with the 120-day extension. Moreover, she asserted that since her first suit was filed within the traditional one-year statute of limitation, she had not yet utilized the 120-day extension. Defendants asserted that the Rajvongs holding should be limited only to transitional plaintiffs and that plaintiff automatically received the 120-day extension on her first suit, whether she used it or not, and was therefore not entitled to another extension. The trial court dismissed the case, and plaintiff appealed.