Day on Torts
The decedent’s mother, who was the guardian of the decedent’s two minor children, was the proper person to be listed on the HCLA pre-suit notice as the “claimant authorizing the notice.”
In Denson v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge, No. E2023-00027-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Oct. 13, 2025), decedent died of cardiac arrest shortly after being discharged from defendant hospital. Decedent had two minor children who were then placed with their maternal grandmother (decedent’s mother), and the grandmother was named the temporary custodian of the children.
The grandmother sent pre-suit notice of an HCLA claim to defendants, which listed the grandmother as the claimant. The pre-suit notice did not mention the minor children. The grandmother then filed this HCLA suit as “Decedent’ mother and next friend and individually,” and in the complaint, she alleged for the first time that she was bringing the suit “on behalf of…decedent’s surviving minor children…as Grandmother and Legal Guardian.” Eventually the grandmother’s individual claims were dropped, and she pursued the case only on behalf of the minor children.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the pre-suit notice failed to identify the proper claimant and was thus deficient under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121. The trial court initially granted the motion, but after plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, the trial court reversed and found that the failure to name the children in the notice was a “technical defect” that did not prejudice defendants, and that the grandmother had standing to give notice and file the claim on behalf of the children as their temporary custodian. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the grandmother did not comply with the pre-suit notice requirements because she did not name the children in the pre-suit notice. In this opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
The Supreme Court wrote that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(B) requires that the pre-suit notice identify the claimant “authorizing the notice,” which the Court defined as “the person who asserts the right and formally approves giving pre-suit notice.” Here, the claim belonged to decedent’s minor children, but “minor children are unable to assert a wrongful death claim and authorize pre-suit notice on their own behalf.” Because they could not act for themselves, “someone else had to do so for them.” After pointing out that the grandmother’s duties as a custodian were “broad enough to encompass the filing of a legal claim on behalf of the minor children,” the Court found that the grandmother also had the authority to give pre-suit notice on behalf of the minor children.
The Supreme Court ruled that the grandmother “was the claimant authorizing the notice” under the HCLA. (internal citation omitted), writing:
We find that Bobbie Jo Denson was “the claimant authorizing the notice” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(B). While the minor children are the claim’s beneficiaries and real parties in interest, they are not the claimant authorizing notice. Bobbie Jo was the one who formally approved giving pre-suit notice and who asserted the claim on behalf of the minor children. Thus, the claimant authorizing notice under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(B) is the one who authorizes giving pre-suit notice whether on his or her own behalf or on behalf of another.
The Court thus concluded that the grandmother actually complied with the HCLA requirements.
The Supreme Court went on to explain that the “identification of beneficiaries may be helpful for defendants, and plaintiffs may choose to include such information voluntarily to facilitate expeditious conclusion of suits,” but that the statute does not require such information to be included. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was therefore reversed.
This is a well-reasoned analysis of an important issue in HCLA/ wrongful death law. Here, the grandmother was the person who authorized the pre-suit notice to be sent, and dismissing the case on the technicality that the minor grandchildren were not named on the notice would have prevented the minor children from seeking damages for their mother’s death.
This opinion was released eight months after oral arguments.