Day on Torts
Where a Tennessee HCLA complaint was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to file a certificate of good faith with her first complaint and the certificate of good faith filed with her amended complaint was not sufficient, but the plaintiff only addressed one ground in her appeal, dismissal was affirmed.
In Moses v. State of Tennessee, No. W2025-00386-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2026), the plaintiff filed a pro se HCLA claim against the state after experiencing complications after a root canal. When the plaintiff filed her initial complaint with the Claims Commission, she failed to file a certificate of good faith. After the state filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and included a certificate of good faith. The plaintiff asserted that “her amended complaint cured any issues related to her original failure to file a certificate of good faith.” The state then filed a motion to strike the amended complaint and certificate of good faith, as well as a brief in support of its motion to dismiss.
The Claims Commission granted the motion to dismiss, finding that 1) the plaintiff failed to file a certificate of good faith with her original complaint as required in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122 or to file a “properly supported motion for an extension of time,” and 2) that the certificate filed with her amended complaint was insufficient under the HCLA, as it “merely stated that [the plaintiff] had consultations with experts, and…she failed to identify individual defendants in the certificate.” Dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
The plaintiff filed this appeal, but on appeal she only argued that she cured any deficiency in the original complaint by filing a certificate of good faith with her amended complaint. The plaintiff failed, however, to address the sufficiency of the certificate of good faith filed with the amended complaint. Because the Claims Commission had dismissed the complaint on two grounds, and the plaintiff failed to address one of those, the judgment of the Claims Commission was affirmed.
This opinion was released 1.5 months after the case was assigned on briefs.
A gentle note to pro se plaintiffs in medical malpractice (HCLA) cases: if you cannot find a lawyer to help you with a case, there is probably one or more very good reasons for their decision to get involved in the case. Trying to handle such a case on your own is rarely, if ever, successful.