Day on Torts

January 16, 2015

Experts in Med Mal Cases: Must Prior Experience Have Been For Pay?

A plaintiff filing a claim under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (HCLA) must prove certain elements, such as the recognized standard of practice, by expert testimony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(b) contains requirements for experts to qualify under the Act, including that the expert was licensed to practice in Tennessee or a contiguous state in a relevant profession or specialty and that the person practiced that profession or specialty in such a state during the year preceding the alleged injury. According to a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case, however, the HCLA does not require a purported expert to have received monetary compensation for the practice in order to qualify under the Act.

In Adkins v. Assoc. of the Memorial/Mission Outpatient Surgery Ctr., LLC, No. E2014-00790-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2015), plaintiff had received a nerve block during a knee procedure, rendering her leg immobile. Her leg was still immobile upon discharge, so a nurse helped plaintiff to her vehicle in a wheelchair and proceeded to lift her into the car. While assisting plaintiff, the nurse dropped plaintiff between the front seat and dashboard of the vehicle, and plaintiff sustained injuries.

Plaintiff gave proper pre-suit notice and filed her complaint, attaching a certificate of good faith as required by the HCLA. The only expert identified by plaintiff was Sandra Gupton, R.N. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Gupton was not qualified as an expert because she was not a practicing nurse in the year preceding the incident. Defendant pointed to Gupton’s deposition testimony where “she stated she had not practiced in the nursing profession during the time period in question.” Plaintiff argued that Gupton had testified that she was busy with her mother-in-law, and that Gupton had in fact been her mother-in-law’s private nurse during this time. Defendant asserted that the alleged employment with her mother-in-law was not sufficient to qualify her as an expert because she was not compensated.

January 15, 2015

No Liability Where Customer Walked Backwards over an Obvious Curb

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Holland v. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., No. E2013-02798-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2015) we have a rather typical trip and fall case – one similar to that Tennessee personal injury lawyers are called about quite frequently.

Ms. Holland sued defendant property owner for injuries incurred when she fell over a curb in a parking lot. The parking lot in question was used for two businesses, a grocery store and a bank, and the two properties were divided by a continuous curb. This curb was unmarked and had weeds growing around it, but was clearly visible. Its purpose was to keep cars parked at the grocery store from driving into the drive-through area of the bank. Plaintiff and her husband parked perpendicular to the curb at the edge of the grocery store parking lot. After shopping in the grocery store, plaintiff was stepping backward while opening the passenger door and tripped on the curb, falling to the ground.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court stated that defendant “had no duty to warn plaintiff of the curb when the curb at issue was open and obvious and when it was not reasonably foreseeable that plaintiff would walk backward without looking and trip and fall over the curb.” Further, the trial court found that a reasonable jury would have to conclude that plaintiff was 50 percent or more at fault for her injuries. The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for the defendant.

January 13, 2015

Joint Commission Publishes New Safety Chapter

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The 2015 Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals includes the new "Patient Safety Systems" chapter, a blueprint for leaders that uses existing standards to achieve an integrated approach to patient safety. Apparently, the Joint Commission believes so strongly in this approach that the chapter is being made available online to anyone who wishes to read it.

The Commission indicates that "quality and safety are inextricably linked. Quality in health care is the degree to which its processes and results meet or exceed the needs and desires of the people it serves. Those needs and desires include safety."

January 13, 2015

Certificates of Good Faith After Defendant Alleges Fault

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Yet another case about the Tennessee law requiring certificates of good faith in medical malpractice (now called health care liability) cases, this one with a twist.

In Sirbaugh v. Vanderbilt Univ., d/b/a Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., No. M2014-00153-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014), plaintiff originally brought suit against two defendants related to a surgical sponge being left in her body. In this initial filing, plaintiff gave proper pre-suit notice to the defendants and attached a certificate of good faith to her complaint in accordance with the Health Care Liability Act. When the original defendants filed their answer, they asserted comparative fault against two non-parties. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122(b), these original defendants were required to file a certificate of good faith regarding their comparative fault allegations against the new non-parties, but plaintiff chose to waive that requirement under § 29-26-122(c).

After the answer was filed, plaintiff amended her complaint to add the two non-parties that defendant had named. When filing her amended complaint, though, she did not file a new certificate of good faith. The new defendants moved to dismiss based on this failure. Plaintiff argued that the requirement to file a good faith certificate only applied to the initial complaint, with plaintiff’s counsel asserting that if the legislature “had meant that Plaintiff had to file a certificate of good faith upon waiving the Defendant’s obligation to do so, they would have said that.” Plaintiff argued that the statute made a distinction between the process for filing an initial health care liability complaint and filing an amended complaint based on an allegation of comparative fault. If the processes did not vary, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the statutes allowing for waiver would essentially have no meaning. The new defendants, however, argued that plaintiff’s “waiver of the Original Defendants’ requirement to file a certificate of good faith addressing their comparative fault claims did not release her from the obligation to file a certificate of good faith when she added the New Defendants to the lawsuit.”

January 12, 2015

Business Owners who Ejected Patrons into Street Just Before Shootout Avoid Liability

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Akridge v. Fathom, No. E2014-0071-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2015), plaintiffs filed a premises liability action after being injured in a shooting that occurred just outside defendants’ business. Defendants operated a music venue/club targeted to at-risk youth including gang members. Plaintiffs attended a public event there on Christmas Eve, and during the event some of the attendees wore gang colors and an altercation broke out inside the building. Defendants’ security personnel stopped the event and made everyone, including plaintiffs, leave the building. Upon exiting, plaintiffs were “caught in the crossfire of a shootout” and were injured.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that they only owned and occupied the building and that the tortious conduct alleged happened outside the building. Thus, defendants argued, they could not be held liable. Plaintiffs responded that defendants had a duty to operate their business in a reasonably safe manner and that such duty had been violated. Because both parties submitted materials outside the pleadings, the motion was converted to one for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The trial court found that since the shooting occurred just steps outside defendants’ business and since defendants’ employees had made plaintiffs exit the building into this foreseeably dangerous situation, liability could exist. On interlocutory appeal, however, the Court of Appeals overturned this ruling.

The key issue in this case was whether “defendants owed a duty of care to plaintiffs, who were injured by the criminal acts of third parties that occurred outside the premises occupied by [one defendant] and owned by [two others].” The Court of Appeals recognized that a special relationship giving rise to a “duty to control the conduct of a third party so as to prevent the third party from causing harm” may exist in a factual scenario such as this, where plaintiffs were invitees of defendants who held premises open to the public. Where the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court, however, was regarding whether “such a duty continued once the invitees exited defendants’ business premises.” The Court stated that there was no Tennessee precedent for extending a business owners’ duty of care to its patrons after the patrons left the premises.

January 11, 2015

Local Rule Changes in the 21st Judicial District

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Judges in the Chancery and Circuit Courts for Williamson, Hickman, Perry and Lewis Counties have announced substantial changes to the local rules of court. The changes were effective December 1, 2014.

Among other significant changes, the local rules now require that one who objects to a motion filed by an opponent file written opposition to the motion. Rule 5.03(c). Regular motions must be filed at least fourteen days before a hearing, and opposition to the motion filed and served at least 4 days before the hearing.

January 6, 2015

City Immune from Suit where it does not Own or Control Property Where Injury Occurred

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), governmental immunity is removed in specific circumstances. Where the government does not own or control the property on which the alleged injury took place, however, the GTLA does not apply and immunity remains intact.

In Turner v. City of Bean Station, No. E2013-02630-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014), plaintiff sued the city, among others, for injuries allegedly sustained while playing softball in a charity tournament. The city moved for summary judgment on the basis that it neither controlled nor owned the field, and that the GTLA therefore did not apply and the city was immune from suit. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision and dismissed the case against the city.

The city had presented evidence that the field in question was owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, which had given the city a license to occupy and use the field as a recreational ball park. The city, in turn, leased the license to the local little league, and the little league oversaw the maintenance of the park and field. On the date of the alleged injury, the little league had “subleased” its license to the person running the charity tournament (another of the defendants in this case).

January 5, 2015

“Magic Words” and Medical Malpractice Litigation

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

While a plaintiff in a health care liability action must prove certain elements through an expert witness, that expert witness is not necessarily required to use “precise legal language.” A medical expert’s failure to use perfect terminology will not automatically result in a victory for defendant, as recently illustrated by the case of Dickson v. Kriger, No. W2013-02830-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014).

In Dickson, plaintiff sued an ophthalmologist for complications allegedly caused by the negligent performance of LASIK surgery. The case went to trial, and after plaintiff’s proof, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the basis that plaintiff had failed to establish (1) the standard of care for ophthalmologists in the area at the time of the procedure and (2) that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the damages. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed this directed verdict, finding that the trial court had held plaintiff’s expert to too specific of a language requirement.

“Directed verdicts are only appropriate when reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion from the evidence.” If there is any material evidence to support plaintiff’s theories, then plaintiff should survive a motion for directed verdict. Here, the Court of Appeals found that a reasonable juror could find that plaintiff established the necessary elements of his case.

January 2, 2015

Statute of Limitations – One Day Late Too Late

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Redmond v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. M2014-00871-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2014), plaintiff filed a premises liability claim after she slipped and fell on a puddle of water in a Nashville Wal-Mart. The incident occurred on August 12, 2012, but during plaintiff’s first conversation with her attorney he recorded that it had occurred on August 13^th. On August 13, 2013, plaintiff’s attorney filed the complaint in this action.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed, asserting that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations and that “the trial court should have granted an enlargement of the statute of limitations under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02.” The Court of Appeals, however, rejected both of these arguments and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Plaintiff’s first argument was that even though she was injured in the initial fall, she had additional injuries that she could not have discovered on the day of the incident, and thus the statute of limitations should have been tolled by the discovery rule as to at least those injuries. The Court explained, though, that “a plaintiff’s cause of action accrues when he or she knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should know, that he or she has sustained an injury as a result of the defendant’s wrongful conduct.” Here, plaintiff was aware on the day of the fall that she had sustained an injury; she filed a report with the store on the day she fell and suffered from pain and bruising. Accordingly, she knew that her fall “would support an action for tort against the tortfeasor” and the discovery rule did not apply. The fact that her injuries got worse following the day of her fall did not entitle her to invoke the discovery rule to escape the one-year statute of limitations.

December 29, 2014

A Website and a Unilateral Phone Call – No Personal Jurisdiction

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Court of Appeals recently addressed the requirements of personal jurisdiction within the context of a misrepresentation case. In Wall Transportation, LLC v. Damiron Corp., No. M2014-00487-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2014), plaintiff was a Tennessee limited liability company and defendant was an Indiana corporation. Defendant had a website where it listed heavy-duty trucks for sale, and plaintiff located a truck on said website that it was interested in purchasing. Plaintiff called defendant’s Indiana location from Tennessee to inquire about the truck and was allegedly told certain things about its condition and mileage. Thereafter, plaintiff traveled to Indiana where he inspected the truck, negotiated a price, entered into a contract for sale, and took delivery of the truck.

Several months later plaintiff filed suit in Robertson County, Tennessee alleging that defendant had made “false and fraudulent representations about the truck concerning its mileage, gear ratio, and the condition of the truck’s body[.]” Defendant made a special appearance for the sole purpose of filing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(2). The trial court granted this motion, finding specifically that defendant was an Indiana corporation, did not routinely do business in Tennessee, did not own property or have employees in Tennessee, did not direct advertising to Tennessee, did not purchase substantial amounts of materials from Tennessee, and did not routinely sell products to Tennessee customers. Further, the trial court found that all of the events related to the sale of the truck occurred in Indiana except for the initial phone call, which was initiated in Tennessee by plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial court held that defendant did not have the minimum contacts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

Based on the same facts cited by the trial court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lack of personal jurisdiction finding. The Court explained that personal jurisdiction is based on the existence of minimum contacts, and that it can be established through either specific or general jurisdiction. Specific personal jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff can “show that the nonresident defendant has purposely established significant contact with the forum state and that the plaintiff’s cause of action arises out of or is related to those activities or contacts.” General personal jurisdiction requires a showing that the defendant had “continuous and systematic” contacts in the state. Here, neither requirements were met. The Court called defendant’s contacts with Tennessee “tenuous at best,” noting that it was not registered to do business in Tennessee and had no office, employees, vehicles, contact information, or bank accounts in Tennessee. Although defendant’s website could clearly be accessed from Tennessee, the Court specifically stated that “[t]he mere existence of a website is not a sufficient basis to support a finding that [defendant] could reasonably anticipate being haled into court [here].” (internal quotations omitted).