Day on Torts

June 26, 2015

Defect in Construction Does Not Stop Statute of Repose From Starting to Run

In Tennessee, the construction statute of repose begins to run when a project reaches substantial completion, which is when it can be used for its intended purpose. A flaw in the project will not prevent it from being substantially complete for statute of repose purposes, as recently demonstrated in the case of Raby v. Covenant Health, No. E2014-01399-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2015).*

In Raby, plaintiff worked at Methodist Hospital. The emergency room at the hospital was “substantially completed and opened in February of 2006.” Apparently a portion of lead-lined wall was left out when the radiology facilities were built, and plaintiff’s suit alleged that she was accordingly exposed to excessive radiation. In December 2013 a lead-lined wall was constructed, but during the entire time between 2006 and 2013 the facility was in use as intended. Plaintiff filed her suit in January 2014.

The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants based on the construction statute of repose found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 which requires that actions based on the construction of an improvement to real properly be brought within four years “after substantial completion of such an improvement.” The trial court found that the hospital radiology department was substantially completed in March 2006 when it became “available for its intended use as an emergency room.” Accordingly, the trial court held that plaintiff’s claim was untimely under the statute of repose, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

June 23, 2015

Tennessee Medical Malpractice Decision on Reversed – Notice Issue

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

In Hughes v. Henry Co. Med. Center, No. W2014-01973-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2015), plaintiffs filed a health care liability action against defendants Henry County Medical Center (“HCMC”) and Dr. Gold. The defendants filed motions to dismiss alleging that plaintiffs failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121. Specifically, defendants asserted that plaintiffs did not include a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization as required by the statute because the authorization did not permit the providers receiving the notice to obtain medical records from each other. The form provided to defendants only allowed HCMC to use its own records in the suit.

Plaintiffs admitted that the form was technically deficient but argued that defendants were not prejudiced because “Dr. Gold only saw [plaintiff] at HCMC and had no records independent of HCMC’s records.” In fact, during the hearing on the motions to dismiss, “counsel for HCMC conceded that Dr. Gold had no records, and there was no actual prejudice in view of this fact.” Nevertheless, the trial court dismissed the action due to plaintiffs’ failure to substantially comply with the statutory requirements. Plaintiffs appealed this decision as to HCMC, and the Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal in favor of that defendant.

The Court rejected HCMC’s argument that prejudice need not be analyzed since the plaintiffs “plainly and entirely failed to substantially comply” with the statutory requirements. Instead, the Court noted that in Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2013), the Tennessee Supreme Court stated that “in determining whether a plaintiff has substantially complied with a statutory requirement, a reviewing court should consider the extent and significance of the plaintiff’s errors and omissions and whether the defendant was prejudiced by the noncompliance. Not every non-compliant HIPAA medical authorization will result in prejudice.”

June 15, 2015

Plaintiff Lacks Proof of Notice of Dangerous Condition – Case Dismissed

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

In Palmer v. Kees, No. E2014-00239-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 1, 2015), a recent premises liability case, plaintiff leased an apartment from defendant and sued defendant for injuries sustained when a board on the stairs leading from the apartment to the ground collapsed. The deck and stairs at the apartment had been built two days before plaintiff began his lease on March 1, 2011. According to plaintiff, during the fall of 2011 he complained to defendant landlord about some wood boards on the deck and stairs that were warped. Defendant hired a repairman to fix the warped boards, and the repairman stated that he left the deck and stairs in good condition. Plaintiff’s fall occurred on April 30, 2012, and he did not present any evidence that he informed defendant about problems with the stairs between the repair and the fall or that defendant otherwise had knowledge of any alleged problems preceding the fall.

June 11, 2015

Lawyer Who Cheated Sanctioned Almost $1,000,000

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

The ABA’s Litigation News has an interesting story on a defense lawyer in a medical malpractice case who was found to have knowingly violated an order on a motion in limine and sanctioned almost $1,000,000.

A court order is an order, not a suggestion. It is possible, in the heat of trial, to make an error and violate an order. While this is and should be consequences of such a mistake, but when, as the trial judge said here, “it is glaringly apparent that [defense counsel’s] conduct was orchestrated to improperly influence the outcome of this trial” there will be hell, or almost $1,000,000, to pay.

I love to win and I hate to lose. I despise people, including lawyers, who feel the need to cheat to win. I cannot see why any responsible insurer, company or individual would ever hire this lawyer in the future.

June 10, 2015

Tennessee Certificate of Good Faith Mandate Does Not Require Disclosure of Zero Prior Violations

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

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently issued an opinion reversing several poorly decided lower court cases regarding the failure to disclose zero prior violations on a Healthcare Liability Act (HCLA) certificate of good faith. In Davis ex rel. Davis v. Ibach, No. W2013-02514-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 29, 2015), plaintiff filed an HCLA claim against defendant, but plaintiff’s certificate of good faith failed to state that plaintiff’s counsel had zero prior violations under the statute. Defendants moved for dismissal on the grounds that plaintiff failed to comply with § 29-26-122(d)(4), which states that a “certificate of good faith shall disclose the number of prior violations of this section by the executing party,” but before the Court could hear the motion plaintiff requested a dismissal without prejudice. The trial court allowed the dismissal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant argued, though, that because the certificate of good faith was noncompliant the Court was required to dismiss the case with prejudice.

The Supreme Court heard the case to determine “whether the failure to indicate the absence of any prior violations of the statute constitutes a failure to comply with the requirement of section 29-26-122(d)(4).” The Court noted that the Court of Appeals had previously held that a plaintiff’s failure to disclose zero prior violations required dismissal with prejudice. (See, e.g., Vaughn ex rel. Vaughn v. Mountain States Health Alliance, No. E2012-01042-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 817032 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2013)). The Supreme Court expressly overruled those decisions, holding that the HCLA “does not require disclosure of the absence of any prior violations of the statute.” The Court reasoned:

[The statute] does not require disclosure of whether or not there have been any prior violations. The General Assembly easily could have worded the statute to instruct a party to disclose whether or not there have been any prior violations and, if so, the number of such prior violations. It did not do so. Logically, if there have not been any prior violations there is no “number of prior violations” to disclose.

June 9, 2015

Truck Owner Not Liable for Sister-in-Law’s Tennesssee Truck Accident

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

In a recent Tennessee car accident case, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the theories of family purpose doctrine and negligent entrustment. In Daniels v. Huffaker, No. E2014-00869-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2015), plaintiff’s vehicle was hit by a truck driven by Huffaker as Huffaker drove to her boyfriend’s apartment. The truck driven by Huffaker was owned by Mr. Norris, Huffaker’s brother-in-law, who was deployed on active duty to Iraq at the time of the accident. While Mr. Norris was in Iraq, Huffaker split her time between her boyfriend’s apartment and her sister’s (Ms. Norris’s) home. Ms. Norris allowed Huffaker to drive Mr. Norris’s truck during his deployment since the truck was not otherwise in use. By the time of the appeal, Mr. Norris had conceded that Huffaker was a permissive user of the truck.

Plaintiff sued Huffaker and Mr. Norris for her damages related to the accident, making claims against Mr. Norris under the theories of the family purpose doctrine and negligent entrustment. Because Huffaker was never properly served, Mr. Norris was ultimately the only defendant in the case. After a hearing, the trial court granted Mr. Norris’s motion for summary judgment on both of plaintiff’s theories of liability, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

June 4, 2015

Informed Consent Expert Testimony Not Limited to Risks that Actually Materialized

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

A recent informed consent case provided the Supreme Court with the opportunity to analyze what risks a plaintiffs’ expert should be allowed to testify about at trial. In White v. Beeks, No. E2012-02443-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 18, 2015), plaintiff had undergone spinal fusion surgery after other attempts at pain management were unsuccessful. After the surgery, plaintiff’s pain initially improved but then became worse, and plaintiff alleged that this was because of an ectopic bone growth caused by the surgery. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant doctor asserting that the doctor had not given him adequate information before the surgery to enable him to give informed consent. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the doctor failed to inform him that a bone mass product called InFuse would be used, how such product would be used, or the risks associated with InFuse.

To prove his informed consent case, plaintiff needed to “prove by expert testimony 1) the information that [defendant] should have disclosed to [plaintiff] to obtain his informed consent for the surgery, as established by the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the specialty [in the same or similar community], 2) whether [defendant] disclosed appropriate information to [plaintiff] to comply with the [standard of care], and 3) whether a reasonable person in [plaintiff’s] position would have consented to the surgery if he had been provided with the information required by the recognized acceptable professional practice.”

June 1, 2015

Summary Judgment Reversed Given Evidence of Opposing Party

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

In Chambers v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., No. W2013-02671-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2015), plaintiffs brought a negligence action against defendant for property damage sustained in a flood. A culvert ran under defendant’s railroad track, and according to plaintiffs, the failure to maintain and keep this culvert free from debris was the cause of the flooding on plaintiffs’ property.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court eventually granted on two grounds. First, the trial court found that a relevant federal regulation “substantially subsumed the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ state law claim,” such that if defendant had complied with the regulation the action was preempted. The trial court determined that defendant had presented uncontroverted testimony regarding the condition of the culvert before the flood and thus proved the “affirmative defense of preemption.” Second, the trial court determined that expert proof was required on this issue of causation, and since plaintiffs had no expert to contradict the condition of the culvert immediately before the flooding, plaintiffs could not prove causation, an essential element of their negligence claim. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed on both of these grounds.

May 11, 2015

Summary Judgment Reversed in Fall-Down Case

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

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment in negligence case where plaintiff testified that she was paying attention and evidence presented did not depict scene from plaintiff’s perspective.

In Walden v. Central Parking System of Tennessee, Inc., No. E2014-00939-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2015), plaintiff sued defendants for negligence after falling in a parking garage. According to plaintiff, she was leaving a doctor’s appointment and walking toward her car when she fell because she did not see a step down from the curb/lobby area to the garage floor. Plaintiff testified in her deposition that she was looking down, paying attention, was not distracted, and that everything looked gray and she did not see any yellow or any other reason to notice that there was a step down. Instead, plaintiff testified that from where she was walking, everything looked the same.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting photographs of the place where plaintiff fell as evidence. These photos showed yellow striping on the curb and in the “no parking area immediately in front of the curb.” Defendants admitted, however, that these photographs were taken “from an angle and viewpoint different from the one Plaintiff would have had as she was walking toward her vehicle.” The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that there no genuine issue of fact, that there was no fault on the part of defendants, and that the accident occurred “due to [plaintiff’s] own failure to observe the open and obvious condition of the premises that was there to be seen.” The Court of Appeals reversed.

May 8, 2015

Tennessee HCLA Case Dismissed for Non-Compliant HIPAA Form.

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

As HCLA cases continue to make their way through the court system, we are learning more about what will constitute substantial compliance with the pre-suit notice content requirements. In the recent case of Harmon v. Shore, No. M2014-01339-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 23, 2015), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed what seems like an overly harsh result related to substantial compliance with the required HIPAA authorization.

In Harmon, plaintiff was injured by a procedure performed solely by Dr. Shore. Plaintiff submitted pre-suit notice to the two defendants she later named in her suit, Dr. Shore and the relevant hospital. The HIPAA form enclosed, however, only released plaintiff’s medical records to her own lawyer. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was initially denied in 2013, but following a denial of Rule 9 appeal from the Court of Appeals and then a remand from the Supreme Court to reconsider in light of the holding in Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2013), the motion to dismiss was granted by the trial court.

Plaintiff did not argue that her HIPAA form strictly complied with the statutory requirements. Instead, her essential argument was that her non-compliance with the technical requirements should be excused because the defendants already had all the records at issue in this case. In her reply to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff stated: