Articles Posted in Medical Negligence

Tennessee Courts continue to make it clear that each time you re-file a previously dismissed Tennessee medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim, you must abide by the statutory requirements. In Cright v. Overly, No. E2015-01215-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2016), the Court of Appeals addressed the need for a plaintiff who was re-filing a previously nonsuited complaint to attach a new HIPAA-compliant release to the second pre-suit notice letter, determining that her failure to do so meant the complaint should be dismissed.

Plaintiff sued multiple defendants related to the treatment and death of her husband. In August 2009, before filing the first suit, plaintiff sent pre-suit notices with a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization to each of the defendants. This action proceeded through discovery and eventually made it to trial, but three days into trial plaintiff moved for a voluntary dismissal.

After the dismissal, plaintiff sent pre-suit notices to the defendants again, but this time she did not include a HIPAA release. Instead, the letter stated: “Medical records of the entire UT Hospital admission at issue have been previously provided to you, as well as any other records you wished to obtain pursuant to an Agreed RAS Order entered in the [original suit].” When plaintiff filed her second complaint, defendants all filed motions to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to include a HIPAA-compliant release with her pre-suit notice pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121. Plaintiff’s attorney asserted that a HIPAA release “was not attached, because the parties had previously entered an agreed order that the RAS service and record ordering procedure was to be the exclusive means for obtaining the deceased’s medical records, to the exclusion of any medical authorizations previously provided.” The trial court, however, granted the motions to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Continue reading

Judge Thomas Brothers of Nashville has declared Tenn. Code Ann. Section 29-26 -121(f)(1) and (2) unconstitutional.    Memorandum Order – Judge Brothers

The code section allows defense lawyers in Tennessee health care liability actions virtually unfettered  ex parte communications with the plaintiff’s non-party health care providers.   The code section was adopted by the Tennessee General Assembly in an attempt to override two  Tennessee Supreme Court  decisions.

The first of those cases was Givens v. Mullikin, 75 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 20o2), which held that a covenant of confidentiality between patients and their treating physicians arises because of an implied understanding between patient and doctor and from a public policy concern that private medical information should be protected.

In Hurley v. Pickens, No. E2015-02089-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2016), the Court of Appeals once again held that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case can take a voluntary nonsuit without prejudice while a motion to dismiss based on an insufficient certificate of good faith is pending.

This opinion was very similar to Clark v. Werther, No. M2014-00844-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2016) and discussed in this Day on Torts post, which came out just two days prior to the instant matter. In Clark, though, plaintiff was pro se and had failed to attach a certificate of good faith to his complaint. Here, plaintiff was represented by counsel and had attached a certificate of good faith, but defendants alleged the certificate was deficient and filed motions to dismiss accordingly.

While the motions to dismiss were pending, plaintiff filed a corrected certificate of good faith, a motion for extension of time to file a corrected certificate of good faith, and a motion for and notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. At a hearing on all of the pending motions, and before any argument on the motions to dismiss, plaintiff “announced that he wanted to take a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41,” which the trial court allowed. Defendants appealed the dismissal without prejudice, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Continue reading

In Clark v. Werther, No. M2014-00844-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2016), the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that nothing about the Health Care Liability Act (HCLA)  certificate of good faith requirement prohibited a plaintiff from taking a TRCP Rule 41 voluntary nonsuit while a motion to dismiss was pending.

Here, a pro se plaintiff filed a health care liability suit against fourteen healthcare providers. When filing his complaint, however, he failed to attach a certificate of good faith as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122. Several of the defendants filed motions to dismiss on this basis. In response, and before any hearing on the motions to dismiss, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit and proposed order. Some of the defendants “opposed [plaintiff’s] notice of nonsuit on the ground that his complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because of the missing certificate of good faith,” as that is the appropriate penalty under the statute. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed without prejudice the claims against the non-objecting defendants, but dismissed with prejudice the claims against the defendants who objected to the nonsuit.

On appeal, the Court noted that Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 governs voluntary nonsuits and precludes a nonsuit in certain situations, including “in a class action case, in a shareholder derivative action, in a case in which a receiver has been appointed, or while an opposing party’s motion for summary judgment is pending,” or “when it would deprive the defendant of some vested right.” (citation omitted). Otherwise, a plaintiff’s ability to take a voluntary nonsuit is “free and unrestricted…before the jury retires.” (citation omitted).

In Newman v. Guardian Healthcare Providers, Inc., No. M2015-01315-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016), the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a medical malpractice (now known as a “health care liability” or “HCLA”) claim because the plaintiff failed to file a certificate of good faith, and expert testimony was required in the case.

Plaintiff sued various companies that provided nursing and medical staff to a psychiatric facility. According to the complaint, plaintiff’s husband, who was a patient and resident at the facility, sustained life-ending injuries when he was attacked by another resident. Plaintiff alleged that defendants were negligence because her husband, who died, was supposed to have one-to-one care and supposed to have a wheelchair, yet had neither. She also alleged that the attacker was supposed to have one-to-one care and was known to be violent, and that defendants failed to take measures to protect the patients from the attacker.

When plaintiff filed her complaint, she did not give pre-suit notice or attach a certificate of good faith to her complaint, as required by the HCLA. At the time of this appeal, it was uncontested that this claim fell under the HCLA.

Continue reading

The Court of Appeals recently examined whether the sickness and death of a lawyer’s child constituted extraordinary cause under the HCLA, finding that it did in fact excuse noncompliance with the statute.

In Kirby v. Sumner Regional Medical Center, No. M2015-01181-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2016), plaintiff was treated at the defendant hospital in June 2013, and plaintiff alleged that the treatment she received fell short of the required standard of care. Well before the one-year statute of limitations, on January 31, 2014, plaintiff’s counsel sent a fax to defendant regarding the claim. No other correspondence was sent, but on the day the one-year statute of limitations was to expire, plaintiff filed suit. Plaintiff attached a certificate of good faith to her complaint, but she admittedly had not served the statutorily required pre-suit notice with attached HIPAA release.

Defendant moved to dismiss the case based on the lack of pre-suit notice. In response, plaintiff’s counsel pointed out that his son was born on March 6, 2014, and subsequently died on June 20, 2014, just days before the statute of limitations was set to expire on this claim. Counsel stated that “[f]or the few months my son lived, there were frequent periodic indications that each day could be his last, including a few serious hospitalizations.” In his memorandum opposing dismissal, plaintiff’s counsel asserted:

In Gilreath v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Authority, No. E2015-02058-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2016), the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant hospital in a Tennessee health care liability  (formerly called “medical malpractice” case.

Plaintiff went to defendant hospital complaining of certain symptoms and allegedly told the medical providers there that her chiropractor had diagnosed her with cauda equina syndrome. Plaintiff was treated at the hospital by two doctors who “failed to recognize her symptoms as suggestive of cauda equina syndrome.” She was discharged with a diagnosis of possible impacted kidney stone, but was later correctly diagnosed at a different hospital after her condition worsened significantly. In this action, plaintiff sued defendant hospital based on the alleged inadequate treatment and diagnosis she received.

Defendant hospital moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff’s expert could not support the claim against it, and that the hospital was not vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the two physicians because the hospital was a government entity that fell under the GTLA and the physicians were not employees of the hospital pursuant to the terms of the Tennessee’s Government Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”). The trial court granted summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

In analyzing this case, the Court first pointed out that plaintiff had attempted to couch her claims as a contract claim and an ordinary negligence claim, but in reality the entire complaint sounded in health care liability. The Court found that “the complaint and responsive pleadings allege specific acts of negligence, namely the failure to order an MRI or other diagnostic test and a neurological or neurosurgical consult…These allegations sound in medical malpractice[.]”

Continue reading

In Caldwell v. Baptist Memorial Hosp., No. W2015-01076-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2016), the Court of Appeals held that the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act’s allowance for ex parte interviews between defendant and plaintiff’s health care providers was not preempted by HIPAA and was permissible under the federal law.

In this case, plaintiff filed an HCLA claim against multiple defendants, and one defendant “filed a petition for a qualified protective order (QPO) pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(f) to allow ‘the defendant and his attorneys the right to obtain protected health information during interviews, outside the presence of claimant or claimant’s counsel, with the patient’s treating healthcare providers.’” While plaintiff acknowledged that defendant had complied with the statutory requirements under Tennessee law, she asserted that HIPAA preempted this Tennessee law and that the interviews should thus not be allowed. The trial court denied the defendant’s request for QPOs, and the defendant appealed.

On the state level, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(f) “allows for the disclosure of protected health care information in ex parte interviews conducted during judicial proceedings,” provided certain conditions are met. The statute requires that the petition identify the healthcare provider to be interviewed; that the plaintiff can object based on the provider not possessing relevant information; that the QPO “shall expressly limit the dissemination of any protected health information to the litigation pending before the court and require the defendant or defendants who conducted the interviews to return…or destroy any protected health information obtained…at the end of the litigation;” and that the QPO must state that participation in the interview is voluntary.

Continue reading

A recent health care liability case illustrates the importance of putting your best case forward the first time around and not depending on appeals or “do-overs” to save your claims.

In Shipley ex rel. Shipley v. Williams, No. M2014-02279-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016), plaintiff brought suit in 2002 alleging that defendant doctor was negligent in failing to assess her condition, failing to provide proper care, failing to admit her to the hospital, and failing to properly follow-up. In 2006, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant on the failure to admit claim, and after granting defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert witnesses, the trial court also granted summary judgment on the remaining claims. The Court of Appeals reversed all of the summary judgment rulings, but the Supreme Court reinstated summary judgment as to the failure to admit claim, allowed the plaintiff’s experts to testify, and allowed the balance of the case to go to the jury. The case was remanded and tried, and the jury found for defendant doctor. Plaintiff appealed.

The first issue on appeal related to the summary judgment on the failure to admit claim. On remand, the trial court initially set aside the summary judgment, “applying the ‘substantially different evidence’ exception to the law of the case doctrine.” After more discovery, though, summary judgment was reinstated, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Court noted that the law of the case doctrine means that “an appellate court’s decision on an issue of law is binding in later trials and appeals of the same case if the facts on the second trial or appeal are substantially the same as the facts in the first trial or appeal.” (internal citation omitted).

In Bogle v. Nighthawk Radiology Services, LLC, No. M2014-01933-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 6, 2016), the dispositive issue was whether the trial court should have stricken defendant’s expert testimony in a health care liability case based on a somewhat confusing exchange between plaintiff’s counsel and the expert on cross-examination, wherein plaintiff argued that the expert admitted that he did not know the applicable standard of care. The Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the trial court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s motion to strike and affirmed the jury’s defense verdict.

The facts underlying this case dealt with the reading of a CT scan by defendant radiologist. Plaintiff’s wife, the decedent, had undergone the implantation of a dual-lead pacemaker, and after being discharged, returned to the hospital complaining of severe chest pains. A CT scan of her chest was taken by the hospital, and the images were transmitted electronically to NIghtHawk Radiology Services, one of the defendants in this case. Dr. Jones, a radiologist who was under contract at NightHawk, read the images and sent a report back to the hospital.

Though suit was brought against several parties, at the time of trial the only remaining defendants were Dr. Jones and NightHawk Radiology. Plaintiff’s theory of the case was that “the right ventricle lead of the pacemaker had perforated the wall of the right ventricle, and that this perforation was visible on the CT scan but was not noted or mentioned in the report of Dr. Jones and NightHawk Radiology.” Plaintiff asserted that the failure to report this perforation was a breach of the applicable standard of care. The defendants’ theory, on the other hand, was that while the pacemaker lead did appear to be in one layer of the heart, it did not appear to have perforated the pericardium. Dr. Jones testified that certain criteria had to be met in order for him to report a perforation, one of which was that the pericardium had to be perforated. Dr. Jones testified that he did not report a perforation here because that criterion was not met.

Continue reading