Day on Torts
Where the plaintiffs submitted no medical evidence supporting their motion to continue the trial of their HCLA claim, and the case had been pending for more than six years, denial of the continuance and dismissal of the case was affirmed.
In Wilson v. Mickles, No. E2025-00349-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2026), the plaintiffs filed a health care liability claim against the defendant based on alleged injuries the plaintiff wife suffered during a dental procedure. The complaint was filed in 2018, and the case was set for trial for November 2023. After several agreed continuances, the case was reset for trial for December 2024. In November, however, the plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the trial, stating that the plaintiff wife was having significant health problems. No medical evidence was attached to the motion.
The defendant opposed the continuance, pointing out that the plaintiff had requested a continuance before due to the same health issues. The defendant argued that the case had been pending for over six years, that it had been continued many times, and that there was no assurance that the plaintiff would be able to participate in a continued trial.
The trial court denied the motion to continue, and then after being informed that the plaintiffs would not participate in the December trial, it dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend, attaching a letter from the plaintiff wife’s physician stating that the wife suffered from anxiety that would be made worse by testifying. The trial court denied this motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed all of the trial court’s rulings.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the trial court misapplied the factors to be weighed when considering a motion for continuance. When considering whether to grant a continuance, a court should consider “(1) the length of time the proceeding has been pending, (2) the reason for the continuance, (3) the diligence o the party seeking the continuance, and (4) the prejudice to the requesting party if the continuance is not granted.” (internal citation omitted). The plaintiffs argued that three of these factors weighed in their favor, but the Court disagreed. The Court pointed out that the motion for continuance was not supported by medical evidence, and the medical letter attached to the motion to alter or amend actually cited a different medical condition than the one cited in the motion to continue. The plaintiff presented nothing to show when she would be able to participate in the case, and there was no evidence showing why the plaintiff husband could not participate. Further, the case had been pending for over six years. Based on these factors, the Court ruled that denying the continuance was not an abuse of discretion.
Next, the plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice. The Court of Appeals, however, noted that in addition to moving to continue the case, the plaintiffs failed to comply with an October pre-trial order. Given the evidence cited above, dismissal of the case was not an abuse of discretion.
Finally, the plaintiffs asserted that the trial court erred by failing to grant the motion to alter or amend, which asked that the dismissal be set aside or be changed to be without prejudice. The Court again pointed out that the plaintiffs had failed to explain why the husband could not participate and move forward, and that the physician’s letter attached to the motion failed to state when the plaintiff might be better.
Finding that “any injustice the Plaintiffs suffered was caused by their own negligence in protecting their interests, moving their case along in a timely manner, and complying with the trial court’s pretrial order,” the denial of the continuance, the dismissal with prejudice, and the denial of the motion to alter or amend were affirmed.
This opinion was released two months after the case was assigned on briefs.