Close

Articles Posted in Medical Negligence

Updated:

Summary judgment affirmed in Tennesssee informed consent case.

Where plaintiff signed an informed consent document and failed to present any expert testimony regarding the sufficiency or circumstances of the document, summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s informed consent HCLA claim was affirmed. In Jarnagin v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, No. M2022-01012-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2023), plaintiff…

Updated:

Statutory immunity provisions related to health care powers of attorney did not prevent inquiry into whether decedent had mental capacity to execute power of attorney.

Where an arbitration agreement had been signed by a decedent’s attorney in fact upon the decedent’s admission into a nursing home, and on a motion to compel arbitration filed by the nursing home the trial court considered evidence on whether the decedent had the mental capacity to execute the power…

Updated:

New Article Published Discussing Tennessee’s “Colleague Privilege”

The Tennessee Bar Journal has just published my article, “Tennessee Supreme Court Creates the “Colleague Privilege.”  The article discusses the implications of a brand-new privilege which provides that “a defendant healthcare provider cannot be compelled to provide expert opinion testimony about another defendant provider’s standard of care or deviation from that…

Updated:

HCLA plaintiff failed to establish breach of standard of care.

Where an HCLA plaintiff failed to establish a breach of the applicable standard of care, the Claims Commissioner’s ruling for the State was affirmed. In Black v. State, No. M2022-00399-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2023), plaintiff filed suit on behalf of her husband, who died after a short stay…

Updated:

HCLA abrogates operation-of-law exception for vicarious liability claims in health care liability actions.

Where “application of the operation-of-law exception would bar a vicarious liability claim that is timely filed within the [HCLA’s] extended statute of limitations solely because the statute of limitations had expired for any claims against the principal’s agents, the exception must give way to the [HCLA].” In two nearly identical…

Updated:

HCLA Plaintiff Cannot Get Benefit of 120-Day Extension When Filing Action Under Savings Statute

Where an HCLA plaintiff has previously given pre-suit notice, utilized the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations provided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, filed suit, voluntarily dismissed the action, then chosen to refile pursuant to the savings statute, that plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the 120-day…

Updated:

HCLA Standard of Care Expert Competent to Testify.

Where plaintiff’s medical malpractice expert was a registered nurse with extensive experience in wound care, the fact that the expert had not practiced in a hospital went “to the weight of her testimony, not to whether she [was] competent.” (internal citation omitted). The trial court’s ruling excluding her as an…

Updated:

Defendant physician cannot be compelled to give expert opinion of other healthcare provider’s care.

In a recent HCLA case, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that “a defendant healthcare provider cannot be compelled to provide expert opinion testimony about another defendant provider’s standard of care or deviation from that standard.” In Borngne ex rel. Hyter v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, — S.W.3d —, No. E2020-00158-SC-R11-CV…

Updated:

Psychologist selected by mother pursuant to court order immune from later HCLA suit.

Court appointed psychologists enjoy immunity in Tennessee. Where a juvenile court ordered that a mother select a new psychologist to replace the existing one in a custody case, the psychologist selected by the mother was entitled to summary judgment based on immunity in a later suit brought by the father…

Updated:

HCLA plaintiff entitled to limited discovery to show that defendant was not prejudiced by noncompliant HIPAA authorization.

Where an Tennessee HCLA plaintiff’s HIPAA authorization had an error in the “purpose” section, but the potential defendants only included two physicians who were employed by the third potential defendant health system and plaintiff asserted that the defendant health system was the only potential defendant who possessed any relevant medical…

Contact Us