New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 22

This is the last of 22 posts in our series of the new laws of interest to tort lawyers.  If you missed any of these posts all of them are collected in the "Legislation 2009" category.

The last post concerns the changes to the rules of civil procedure, evidence, and appellate procedure, as well as a host of changes to the rules dealing with electronic evidence.   I have authored a previous post on this subject, but wanted to round out the series with one more link to these new rules.  Here they are

Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rules of Evidence

Rules of Civil Procedure (E-Discovery)

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 21

Post 21 of this series re-designates the current language of existing T.C.A. Section 70-7-104 (the Recreational Use Statute) as subsection (a) and then adds a subsection (b). Thus, as of July 1, the new statute reads as follows:


(a) This part does not limit the liability that otherwise exists for:

(1) Gross negligence, willful or wanton conduct that results in a failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or

(2) Injury caused by acts of persons to whom permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, sightsee, cave, or any other legal purpose was granted, to third persons or to persons to whom the person granting permission, or the landowner, lessee, occupant, or any person in control of the land or premises, owed a duty to keep the land or premises safe or to warn of danger.


(b) Subdivision (a)(1) shall not be construed to impose liability or remove the immunity conferred by Sec. 70-7-102 for failure to guard or warn of a dangerous condition created by forces of nature.

Click on the link to read Public Chapter 602.

 

 

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 20

Post 20 (we are almost finished with this series folks, I promise) concerns judicial selection and evaluation.   So much has been written about this subject the last four years.  The bill is 16 pages in lengh and cannot be summarized here.  If you are truly interest in reading this legislation, click on the link to read Public Chapter 517.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 19

Post 19 addresses the liability of "agritourism professionals."  What, in heaven's name, is a agritourism professional?  A person involved in agritourism, of course.  And what is that? Agritourism is 

any activity carried out on a farm or ranch, eligible for greenbelt classification under Title 67, Chapter 5, Part 10, that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, ranching, historic, cultural, or harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions. An activity is an agritourism activity whether or not a participant provides compensation in money or other valuable compensation to participate in the activity. Agritourism activity includes an activity involving any animal
exhibition at an agricultural fair, regardless of the location of the fair.

Here is a brief description of what the bill does:

This bill confers immunity on an agritourism professional against liability for any injury to or death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of agritourism activities. Similarly, this bill prohibits any participant or participant's representative from maintaining an action against or recovering damages from an agritourism professional for any injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting exclusively from any of the inherent risks of agritourism activities.

The conferred immunity does not prevent or limit the liability of an agritourism professional if the agritourism professional or any of its agents does any of the following:

(1) Commits an act or omission that constitutes reckless disregard for the safety of the participant, and that act or omission proximately causes injury, damage, or death to the participant;
(2) Has actual knowledge or reasonably should have known of a dangerous condition on the land, facilities, or equipment used in the activity or the dangerous propensity of a particular animal used in the activity and does not make the danger known to the participant, and the danger proximately causes injury, damage, or death to the participant;
(3) Fails to train, or improperly or inadequately trains, employees who are actively involved in agritourism activities and an act or omission of the employee proximately causes injury, damage, or death to the participant;
(4) Intentionally injures the participant; or
(5) Commits any other act, error, or omission that constitutes willful or wanton misconduct, gross negligence, or criminal conduct.

Click on the link to read the entire text of Public Chapter 498.

 

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 18

Post 18 of this series brings to your attention a change in the law concerning the licensing of lawyers and  pro hac vice admission of lawyers to practice in Tennessee.   The language of T.C.A. Sec. 23-1-108 has been deleted and replaced with the following language:

No person shall practice law in this state without first receiving a license
issued by the Tennessee supreme court and complying with the provisions of
Rule 6 of the Rules of the Tennessee supreme court concerning admission to the
practice of law, except that nothing in this statute precludes the pro hac vice
admission of persons licensed in other jurisdictions in accordance with
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 19.

Here is a the text of Public Chapter 485.    Here is the text of  Rule 19 of the T.S.C.R.

 

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 17

Post 17 of this series also addresses the subject of court reporting.  This bill establishes: (1) licensure requirements for court reporters; (2) the Tennessee Board of Court Reporting; and (3) the Tennessee board of Court Reporting Fund.   This bill prohibits any person from practicing court reporting  or holding the person out as a court reporter unless the person is a licensed court reporter, except as otherwise provided by law.   

The licensure requirements go into effect July 1, 2010.

Click at the link to see a complete copy of Public Acts,2009 Public Chapter 450.

 

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 16

Post 16 of this series addresses a change in the law applicable to taking of depositions.  The bill summary set forth below describes the original bill as amended.  The new law


prohibit[s] the taking of a deposition before a person who is:

(1) A party to the action or an attorney for one of the parties;
(2) A relative, including a spouse, of one of the parties or of an attorney for one of the parties;
(3) An employee of one of the parties or of an attorney for one of the parties;
(4) Someone who has, or has had during the past two years, a sexual relationship with one of the parties or with an attorney for one of the parties; or
(5) Someone with a financial interest in the action or its outcome.

This amendment authorizes a deposition to be taken before a person described in (1) through (5) if all of the parties enter into a written stipulation pursuant to Rule 29 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 

This amendment requires any person before whom a deposition is to be taken to disclose to the parties in a timely fashion the existence of any facts known to such person which are relevant to the factors set forth in (1) through (5). It will be a Class C misdemeanor for any person to take a deposition and knowingly fail or refuse to disclose any facts required by (1) through (5).

This amendment specifies that any lawyer or lawyer's agent may operate video equipment in the case of a videotaped deposition.

A deposition taken by a person described in (1) through (5) will be voidable at the election of any party unless the parties have stipulated otherwise, an appropriate court order prohibits such election, or the party attempting to void the deposition violated the provisions of this amendment directly or through a related person described (1) through (5). An election to void a deposition pursuant to this amendment must be made within 30 days of discovery of the violation.

This amendment prohibits any person who is forbidden to take a deposition in an action pursuant to the provisions of this amendment from recording or transcribing for submission to any court or administrative tribunal any hearing before any court or administrative agency concerning such action.

Here is the complete text of Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 427.   See the Legislation 2009 Category for more changes to Tennessee statutory law of interest to tort lawyers.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 15

Post 15 addresses the changes to Tennessee law concerning the proper way to give notice to potential defendants in medical malpractice cases and the changes in the law concerning the certificate of good faith. 

I have addressed this legislation in several other posts  (here is a post with a complete summary) and need not repeat what I have published in the past.  For those of you who are involved in medical negligence litigation I suggest you read my  article on this legislation in the July 2009 edition of the Tennessee Bar Journal.

The predecessor to this law came into effect last October and has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of medical malpractice case filings.  As I wrote in June, the number of filings for the first eight months after the original law law passed are down 60% over a year earlier.  

Clink on the link to read Public Acts 2009,  Public Chapter 425.  Click on the Legislation 2009 Category to see additional changes to Tennessee statutory law in 2009.

 

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 14

Well, are all of these posts on new legislation of interest to Tennessee tort lawyers driving you crazy?  Some lawyers forget that the Tennessee General Assembly has passed hundreds of laws that impact tort practice.  The rest of us know that tort law has it roots in common law, but is also greatly impacted by statutes and regulations.  Thus, we continue down the path of identifying new legislation that will impact the right of your clients to recover damages.

This post addresses a change to the worker's compensation law, not a tort subject but one of interest to many tort lawyers.  T.C.A. Sec 50-6-110(a), which addresses those situations in which worker's compensation will not be paid to a worker, has been revised.  Here is the new , revised section created by Public Chapter 403:

(a) No compensation shall be allowed for an injury or death due to:
(1) The employee's willful misconduct;
(2) The employee's intentional self-inflicted injury;
(3) The employee's intoxication or illegal drug usage;
(4) The employee's willful failure or refusal to use a safety device;
(5) The employee's willful failure to perform a duty required by law;
(6) The employee's voluntary participation in recreational, social,
athletic, or exercise activities (including, but not limited to, athletic events,
competitions, parties, picnics, exercise programs) whether or not the
employer pays some or all of the costs thereof unless:
     (A) Participation was expressly or impliedly required by the
employer; or
     (B) Participation produced a direct benefit to the employer
beyond improvement in employee health and morale; or
     (C) Participation was during employee's work hours and
was part of the employee's work-related duties; or
     (D) The injury occurred due to an unsafe condition during
voluntary participation using facilities designated by, furnished by
or maintained by the employer on or off the employer's premises
and the employer had actual knowledge of the unsafe condition
and failed to curtail the activity or program or cure the unsafe
condition.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 13

Post 13 in our series of new legislation of interest to tort lawyers concerns the administration of in nursing homes.

Public Chapter 403 eliminates the need for nurses to provide medication to patients.  Now, an aide who receives certain training  is permitted to administer the following medications:


(1) Oral medications;
(2) Topical medications;
(3) Medications administered as drops to the eye, ear, or nose;; and
(4) Any of the above medications prescribed with a designation authorizing or requiring administration on an as-needed basis, but only if a nursing assessment of the patient is completed by a licensed nurse before the medication is administered.

This legislation also prohibits an aide from applying topical medications ordered for the treatment of pressure ulcers or skin grafts.

If you prosecute or defend nursing home cases you need to read the entire Act.  To do so use the link for Public Acts, 2009, Public Chapter 403.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 12

Post 12 of this series on changes in Tennessee statutory law of interest to tort lawyers addresses a new law that imposes lighting requirements on bicycles.

Here is the new code section, which replaces existing section (a) of T.C.A. Sec. 55-8-177:

(a) Every bicycle, when in use at nighttime, shall be equipped with a lamp on the
front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet (500') to the front and either a red reflector or a lamp emitting a red light which shall be visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet (500') to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle.

This has obvious implications for those representing bicyclists in nighttime crashes or defending motorists who have collided with bicyclists at night.

Clink on the link to read Public Acts 2009, Public Chapter 397.  Click on the Legislation 2009 Category to see additional changes to Tennessee statutory law in 2009.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 11

We are up to Post 11 in our series that highlights new changes to Tennessee statutory law of interest to tort lawyers.

The Legislature has modified T.C.A. Sec. 68-11-256 (a) to require all nursing homes to perform a criminal background check on all employees who provide direct care to patients or residents.  The background check must be performed before the person is hired.

Read Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 384 here.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 10

Post 10 addresses changes to the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984, codified at TCA Title 47, Chapter 25, Part 11.

Here is a summary of the new law:

Under present law, the Personal Rights Protection Act specifies that an individual is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered as a result of the knowing use or infringement of such individual's rights and any profits that are attributable to such use or infringement which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. Profit or lack thereof by the unauthorized use or infringement of an individual's rights is not a criteria of determining liability.

This amendment adds that an individual is entitled to recover three times the amount to which the individual is entitled under present law (as described above), plus reasonable attorney fees, if a person knowingly uses or infringes the rights of a member of the armed forces in violation of the Act.

Click on the link to read Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 359.

Read about other new legislation ( 9 posts so far, with more to come) go to the  Legislation 2009 category.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 9

Post 9 in our ongoing series of legislation of interest to tort lawyers addresses a new act that clarifies the responsibility of cemetary operators when they learn that a body has been interred in the wrong burial plot at the cemetery.  If the cemetary operator complies with the statute no damages can be awarded against the cemetery unless the cemetery acted intentionally or with malice.

Click on the link to read Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 365.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 8

This is Post 8 in my review of the legislation of interest to tort lawyers that was passed by the General Assembly in 2009.   Want to see more?  Look at the Legislation 2009 category.

This legislation is of interest to those who bring or defend dram shop cases.  The new act modifies TCA Section 57-3-406 and TCA Section 57-5-301.  Here is a summary of the bill:

Present law prohibits an alcoholic beverage retailer from selling any alcoholic beverages to any person who is drunk and from selling alcoholic beverages to any person accompanied by a person who is drunk. This bill revises this provision to refer to persons who are "visibly intoxicated" instead of persons who are "drunk."

Present law prohibits a person who holds a permit to sell beer from making or permitting to be made any sales to minors. This bill additionally prohibits such permittees from selling beer to persons who are visibly intoxicated.

Click on the link to read Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 206.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 7

Here is Post 7 of recent changes to statutory law in Tennessee that I think will be of interest to tort lawyers.  As I have said in the last six posts,  you can read about additional changes in the law under the Legislation 2009 category.

Public Chapter 206  changed the Governmental Tort Liability Act to include Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 29-20-101  et seq, to   specifically include "community action agenc[ies] [and] nonprofit corporation[s] which administer[] the Head Start or Community Service Block Grant programs" as entities covered under the Act.

I believe that this legislation is a result of a case our firm handled against such an organization in East Tennessee earlier this year.  We argued that the entity was not covered by the Act (and therefore the damage caps did not apply) because the type of entity was not specifically mentioned in the Act.  I predicated at the time we identified the issue that a legislative change would be forthcoming, and this is it.

Click at the link to read Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 206.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 6

This is the sixth in a series of posts concerning changes in Tennessee statutory law that I believe to be of interest to tort lawyers.  For more changes click on the Legislation 2009 category of this blog.

Public Chapter 201 prohibits, subject to certain exceptions,  the reading or sending of text messages while operating a motor vehicle and while the vehicle is in motion.

Here are the key provisions of the new law:

(b) No person while driving a motor vehicle on any public road or highway shall use a hand-held mobile telephone or a hand-held personal digital assistant to transmit or read a written message; provided, that a driver does not transmit or read a written message for the purpose of this subsection (b) if such driver reads, selects or enters a telephone number or name in a hand-held mobile telephone or a personal digital assistant for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call.


(c) The provisions of this section shall only apply to a person driving a motor vehicle that is in motion at the time a written message from a mobile telephone or hand-held personal digital assistant is transmitted or read by such person.

Click on the link to read the entire text of  Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 201.  

Here is a link to a recent post on the greatly increased risk of driving while texting.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 5

This is the fifth in a series of posts about changes in Tennessee statutory law of interest to tort lawyers.   For other changes click on the Legislation 2009 category.

Tennessee has a "Ski Area Safety and Liability Act" codified at TCA Section 68-114-101 et seq.  Public Chapter 85 changes the definition of skier to include "any person present in a ski area for the purpose of engaging in the sport of skiing, Nordic, freestyle, or other types of ski jumping, and who is using skis, or a sled, tube, or snowboard."  It also increases the minimum insurance limits for each "ski area operator responsible for a passenger tramway" to $1,000,000.

Click on the link to read Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 85.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 4

This is the fourth in a series of posts that addresses new laws of interest to Tennessee tort lawyers.  For other changes go to the Legislation 2009 category of this blog.

Those of us who keep an eye on the Tennessee General Assembly know that there is an ongoing battle over whether hospitals will be permitted to employ physicians.  As of now, hospitals can employ hospitalists but they cannot employ ER doctors, anesthesiologists, radiologists, etc. 

The renal dialysis clinics have cracked the door open slightly and won the right to employ doctors under certain circumstances.  This will be of interest to medical malpractice lawyers, who will need to explore the vicarious liability of clinics for the acts of nephrologists and others caring for ESRD patients.  The law will also be of interest to those representing such doctors, in tort as well as contract litigation.
 

Here is a summary of the legislation:

This bill authorizes renal dialysis clinics to employ licensed physicians to provide medical services, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Employing entities may not restrict or interfere with medically appropriate diagnostic or treatment decisions;
(2) Employing entities may not restrict or interfere with physician referral decisions unless: the physician so employed has agreed in writing to the specific restrictions at the time that the contract is executed; the restriction does not, in the reasonable medical judgment of the physician, adversely affect the health or welfare of the patient; and the employing entity discloses any such restrictions to the patient; and
(3) In the event that there is any dispute relating to (1) or (2), the employing entity would have the burden of proof.

This bill prohibits clinic from restricting the employed physician's right to practice medicine upon the termination or conclusion of the employment relationship, except as allowed by present law governing non-compete covenants for physicians (see TCA Section 63-1-148). However, in the event that the employment contract with a physician employed independently of a bona fide practice purchase is terminated by the clinic for reasons other than breach by the employee, any such restrictions would be void.

This bill specifies that it does not prohibit any of the following from employing physicians:

(1) A licensed physician; or
(2) A group of licensed physicians, including, but not limited to, either of the following: a physicians' professional corporation; or a 501(c)(3) domestic nonprofit public benefit corporation that operates as a "faculty practice plan" for purposes of the federal Social Security Act, a purpose of which is to engage in medical education and medical research in conjunction with a college or university operating an accredited medical school in Tennessee and whose physician-employees are restricted to the medical faculty of such a college or university.

With respect to any such domestic nonprofit public benefit corporation, physician employees of any such faculty practice plan who practice in the specialties of radiology, pathology, anesthesiology and/or emergency medicine are restricted to practice as faculty practice plan employees in those health care institutions, including but not limited to hospitals or surgery centers, in which they were practicing as employees of the nonprofit public benefit corporation on May 30, 1997.

This bill prohibits an affiliate of a renal dialysis clinic that employs physicians from engaging in any business other than the employment of physicians, the management of physicians and health care facilities, or the ownership of property and facilities used in the provision of health care services, or a tissue bank or organ procurement agency. Any violation of this bill by an affiliate would subject any renal dialysis clinic at which the physician has staff privileges, and that controls or is under common control with the affiliate, to the penalties and sanctions applied to renal dialysis clinics that employ physicians.

No radiologist, anesthesiologist, pathologist, or emergency physician may be employed by a renal dialysis clinic or an affiliate of a renal dialysis clinic, and no renal dialysis clinic or an affiliate of a renal dialysis clinic may employ any physician to provide medical services provided by radiologists, anesthesiologists, pathologists, or emergency physicians; provided, that a physician may be employed to provide emergency medical services if such physician is employed to provide other medical services.

This bill prohibits the clinics from requiring, by contract or policy, that as a condition or consequence of employment, written or otherwise, employed physicians relinquish staff privileges, or the rights related to staff privileges, upon the commencement of, upon any event during the pendency of, or at the termination or conclusion of, the employment relationship. This bill specifies that it does not affect or negate the ability of an employing renal dialysis clinic to revoke or suspend a physician's staff privileges in accordance with the procedures set forth in the staff bylaws. Renal dialysis clinics may not substitute physician employment contracts for staff privileges. Non-employed and employed physicians holding staff privileges at a renal dialysis clinic that is an employing entity, or renal dialysis clinics at which employed physicians hold staff privileges that are affiliates of employing entities, would enjoy the same privileges, rights and protections with respect to staff membership. Employment of a physician would not affect any other physician's staff privileges. Physicians who hold membership on staff at a renal dialysis clinic which is an employing entity, or a renal dialysis clinic at which employed physicians hold staff privileges that are affiliates of employing entities, would be provided with the rights and protections, including rights of self-governance, afforded by the applicable state licensing board, and, when accredited, the accrediting entity or agency.

If a physician, in connection with a claim for breach of contract or other dispute related to the present law provisions governing the practice of medicine and the employment of a physician by a hospital, renal dialysis clinic, or other entity to employ physicians, establishes in a court of competent jurisdiction, or other forum, including in a peer review action or arbitration proceeding, that the conditions of those provisions have been violated by the employing entity, the physician would be entitled to recover the physician's cost of litigation, arbitration, or peer review defense, and a reasonable attorney's fee.

This bill prohibits renal dialysis clinics from restricting or interfering with patient referral decisions in a manner that unnecessarily increases the cost to the patient of the medical services provided.

Here is a copy of Public Acts, 2009 Public Chapter 70.

 

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 3

Many lawyers think that the law concerning depositions is set out only in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and the case law interpreting those rules.  That is not correct.

Public Chapter 55 creates a new subsection  to TCA Section 24-9-101, which  allows court to award attorney fees and expenses if motion to quash subpoena is granted when the witness is exempt from subpoena to trial.  The new subsection is labeled (b).

What is the text of subsection (a)?  In other words, what classes of people are exempt from subpoena to trial?  Here is the list:

(1) An officer of the United States;

(2) An officer of this state;

(3) An officer of any court or municipality within the state;

(4) The clerk of any court of record other than that in which the suit is pending;

(5) A member of the general assembly while in session, or clerk or officer thereof;

(6) A practicing physician, psychologist, senior psychological examiner, chiropractor, dentist or attorney;

(7) A jailer or keeper of a public prison in any county other than that in which the suit is pending; and

(8) A custodian of medical records, if such custodian files a copy of the applicable records and an affidavit with the court and follows the procedures provided in title 68, chapter 11, part 4, for the production of hospital records pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum.

Here is a copy of Public Acts 2009, Public Chapter 55.

Finally, remember that Part 2 of Chapter 9 of Title 24 is the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act.  This Part was substantially revised in 2008.  It now contains the following sections:

24-9-201. Short title.

24-9-202. Part definitions.

24-9-203. Issuance of subpoena.

24-9-204. Service of subpoena. 

24-9-205. Deposition, production, and inspection.

24-9-206. Application to court.

24-9-207. Award of attorney's fees and expenses.

To see other changes to Tennessee statutory law in 2009 that is of interest to tort lawyers click on the Legislation 2009 Category.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 2

The second post in this series reports on a new law that confers immunity from civil action upon victims of crime for testimony given at offender's parole hearing unless testimony is intentionally or maliciously false and defamatory.

Here is the full text of the new statute:

T.C.A. Section 40-38-303.


(a) In order for a victim of crime to meaningfully exercise the victim's constitutional right to be heard, when relevant, at all critical stages of the criminal justice process, a victim is immune from civil liability or any civil cause of action brought by the offender that arises from the victim's testimony at the offender's hearing before the board of probation and parole, or a panel thereof. Such immunity from suit shall not apply if the victim's testimony is intentionally and maliciously false and defamatory.


(b)(1) If the offender brings a cause of action against the victim based upon the victim's testimony before the board of probation and parole, or a panel thereof, in spite of the immunity conferred by subsection (a), as an attachment to the complaint, the offender shall proffer all statements made by the victim alleged to be intentionally and maliciously false and defamatory. Within five (5) days the court shall examine the offender's complaint to determine if the statements of the victim proffered by the offender could reasonably be construed as sufficient to overcome the victim's immunity conferred by this section.


(2) If the court finds that the victim's statements to the board of probation and parole, or a panel thereof, may reasonably be construed as intentionally and maliciously false and defamatory, it shall allow the cause of action to proceed.


(3) If the court finds that the offender has not produced sufficient evidence to overcome the victim's immunity conferred by subsection (a), it shall dismiss the cause of action with prejudice.

(4) If the court finds that not only was the action without merit but was brought for the purpose of intimidating, harassing or abusing the victim in violation of Article I, Section 35 of the Tennessee Constitution, it:
(A) Shall notify the appropriate warden of the offender's institution and recommend disciplinary action against the offender, including the loss of sentence reduction credits; and
(B) May prohibit the offender from filing any future actions of a similar nature in such court.

Here is a copy of Public Acts 2009, Public Chapter 50.

For other changes in Tennessee statutory law of interest to tort lawyers see the Legislaton 2009 category.

New Tennessee Legislation of Interest to Tort Lawyers - Post 1

This post is a first in a series of posts that will address new laws passed by the 106th General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Bredesen.  The posts will run two or three days per week over the next several weeks.

The first post is a change to the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967.  The bill will be of interest to any one who does medical malpractice or any other area of health care law.

Here is a summary of the legislation:

The Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 grants peer review committees certain immunities relating to their actions undertaken to review, discipline, and educate the medical profession. "Peer review committee" means any committee of a state or local professional association or society, including impaired physician peer review committees, programs, malpractice support groups and their staff personnel, or a committee of any licensed health care institution, or the medical staff thereof, or any committee of a medical care foundation or health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, individual practice association or similar entity, the function of which is to evaluate and improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of health care service.

This bill clarifies that a "peer review committee" also includes a "medical group practice" and their staff personnel, and as such, a medical group practice has the immunity provided under present law.

Here is the full text of Public Acts 2009,  Public Chapter No. 46