The Tennessee Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal in two cases that address the issue of apparent agency.   In both cases plainitffs seek to impose liability on a hospital for the acts of a doctor.  The cases have been consolidated for appeal.

One case is DeWald v. HCA Heatlh Services of Tennessee, No. M2006-02369-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2007);.  This case involves an ER physician.  Read the opinion here.

The other case is Boren v. Weeks, No. M2007-00628-COA-R0-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2007).  This case also involves an ER physician.  Read the opinion here.

My new book, referenced in this post, will be available November 1, 2007, not 2008.   Sorry for the error.  I guess I can pass it off on age – I turn 51 (or is it 52?) tomorrow.

The book goes to the printer today.  The first section has 66 chapters and 233 featured cases on 233 tort law topics; each case is  summarized to address the indicated legal topic to save you time and help launch your research effort.  This section of the book totals 439 pages. 

The next 500+ pages contain selected statutes as well as the rules of evidence, civil procedure, and appellate procedure.

On November 1, 2008 my new book will be available for sale.

My goal for this book is to provide a one-volume resource for Tennessee tort lawyers who are looking for a quick reference to the leading case on a given point.  Need a quick summary of the law of informed consent?   In less than one minute you will be able to find the leading case on point and use the concise summary of the holding in that case as a launching point for additional research.  Receive a call on a potential defamation case?  In less than one minute you will find a 13-page chapter that summarizes the leading Tennessee cases on the topic and references over 50 more cases,

The book, called  DayonTorts:   A Handbook for Tennessee Tort Lawyers,  organizes the leading Tennessee cases by topic.   Many of the summaries also include citations to other cases of interest on the particular legal issue.   In total, over 1000 cases are cited in the book.

I have told you in the past that I love Blog 702.  It is a blog of substance, written by someone who knows what they are talking about and who is willing to share what they know.

The authors of Blog 702 have started a series about the concept of "reasonable degree of medical certainty."  Here are the first few paragraphs"

Quite some time ago now, we promised to respond to a Beck & Herrmann post decrying an ALI proposal to abolish any requirement that experts offer their opinions to a “reasonable degree” of medical, professional, or scientific “certainty.” (Call this the “RDC” rule for short.) The ALI proposal would abrogate any RDC requirement and demand only that the expert hold his or her opinion to be more likely true than not — at least in the context of opinions offered to prove causation in tort cases involving physical harm.

I  did not post for two days in a row and received four inquires about the state of my health.

I am alive.

I am in a middle of finishing a project that I will tell you more about next week.  Today I will be consumed with four depositions and a meeting with a new client on what looks like a great products case against an automobile manufacturer.   We are also filing two new cases today in Knoxville, a products case in federal court and a road construction / signage negligence case in state court.  It has been more than the ordinary flurry of activity at Day & Blair this week, but I am scrambling to get everything done so that I can relax at the Titans-Colts game Sunday afternoon.

OK – the Pats got hit with a fine – $250,000 for the team and $500,000 for the coach – for cheating in professional football.  They also face a loss of a draft pick or picks, depending on how they finish this season.

It’s not enough.

I want to know if this is an isolated event or, if not, how long have they been cheating.  The coach implied that he mis-interpreted the rules.  How long has he been running his team under this misunderstanding?  Did their misconduct help them win any of the three Super Bowls in the last three years?  If so, take the prize money back and pull the rings off the fingers of every coach aware of the practice.  And put an asterick next to their name in the record books – *Cheaters.

The jury found that the defendant was negligent and that the negligence caused an herniated disk.  The disk problem was surgically repaired.  The plaintiff used a walker for nine months and now uses a cane. Amount of damages for pain and suffering?  Zero.

Motion for new trial?  Denied.

The California Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the failure to award damages for pain and suffering meant that the verdict was inadequate as a matter of law.

You may not like the rules.  You may think the rules are unfairly applied.  But here is a case that makes it clear that  (a) the failure to follow the rules can have significant consequences and (b) if you make a mistake it is important not to make matters worse.

Wade v. Soo LIne RR Corp. is a case out of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s case because of conduct by the plaintiff’s lawyer.  Here is a brief summary of the conduct at issue:

Soo Line argued, first, that Brugess and his firm made improper payments to [medical provider] TOS to influence its diagnosis of Wade, and, second, that Wade had tried to conceal these damaging documents and, even after being caught, tried to conceal them again and, when their absence was detected once more, tarried in turning them over. The district court concluded that the money was payment for an independent medical examination rather than a kickback, and while “not per se improper”, was “certainly an unsavory ‘sweetening of the deal.’ ” The court ruled that, although the payments did not themselves merit sanctions, failure to turn over highly relevant documents justified not only dismissal with prejudice but also an order requiring Brugess to pay Soo Line’s fees and costs. In the district court’s view, the dismissal would not hurt Wade, because “[g]iven the documents uncovered by Mohan, the grant of summary judgment for Soo Line is almost a foregone conclusion.”

It is not just the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act that has a discretionary function exception – the Federal Tort Claims Act has one, too.

This case – Navarette v. United States – discusses the exception and applies it to a case filed after a person fell off of a cliff at a Army Corps of Engineers’ park.  The case includes a dissenting opinion, and thus gives you an opportunity to see two different views of the doctrine.

The opinion, released by the 9th Circuit on August 29, 2007, may be read here.

Contact Information